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
  #1  
Old 01-09-2019, 10:27 AM
darmoose darmoose is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,419
Default New rule of rules.

For reasons explained in the other thread about wedging a CB against the rail by "trapping the CB, I think this solution needs it's own thread. Not going to go through the explanation again, but just quote the rule. Hope you will make reasonable and logical comments and criticisms.

After ANY foul and after the penalty is assessed by spotting a ball, the opponent has the option of returning the table to the fouling player, and as many times as is necessary for the player to make a shot without fouling.

What do you think?

__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.

Last edited by darmoose; 01-09-2019 at 10:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-09-2019, 11:42 AM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,257
Default

Darmoose, to be clear, your rule suggestion is after 'any foul' and not isolated to just intentionally trapping/wedging the balls. Right? Whitey
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-09-2019, 11:56 AM
lll lll is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: vero beach fl
Posts: 14,564
Default

darrell
i appreciate your time and effort considering rule changes and ways to make tournaments play faster
and you do have valid points to your point of view
but i dont think the small number of regular posters and an aggressive presenter should rock the world of one pocket and change the official onepocket.org rules
jmho
icbw
that being said it would be interesting to try it out in a game

Last edited by lll; 01-09-2019 at 01:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-09-2019, 12:10 PM
androd's Avatar
androd androd is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Braunfels tx.
Posts: 7,113
Default

Not a bad idea ! Although I'm a lucky player, it probably wouldn't help me.
__________________
Rod.

Rodney Stephens.
(e-mail) rod.stephens0105@att.net(e-mail) #713-973-0503 is now working
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-09-2019, 02:20 PM
NH Steve's Avatar
NH Steve NH Steve is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 8,382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darmoose View Post
For reasons explained in the other thread about wedging a CB against the rail by "trapping the CB, I think this solution needs it's own thread. Not going to go through the explanation again, but just quote the rule. Hope you will make reasonable and logical comments and criticisms.

After ANY foul and after the penalty is assessed by spotting a ball, the opponent has the option of returning the table to the fouling player, and as many times as is necessary for the player to make a shot without fouling.

What do you think?

After any foul, the opponent has the option of passing back the position? So any "intentional" or on purpose -- not just illegal things like squeeze shots or ferule touches, etc?

Interesting idea -- I have to think about it a bit more. One thing that always concerns me with any new rule idea is, what are the unintended consequences?
__________________
"One Pocket, it's an epidemic and there ain't no cure."
-- Strawberry Brooks
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-09-2019, 02:26 PM
darmoose darmoose is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,419
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis "Whitey" Young View Post
Darmoose, to be clear, your rule suggestion is after 'any foul' and not isolated to just intentionally trapping/wedging the balls. Right? Whitey
Whitey,

I know you pay attention to rules discussions and have valuable thoughts to offer.The answer to your specific question is "yes", it applies to ALL fouls, no exceptions (that is the best kind of rule, no exceptions). Consider what I explained in the other thread as to the problems this will solve, and consider that the pool world already uses this rule in the case of nine ball when we allow a "pushout" and give the opponent the option of shooting or giving the table back to the opponent. And, yes, I know that in this case the pushout was not a foul.

There is no good reason why a player should be allowed to commit a foul, intentionally or otherwise, and it penalizes his opponent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lll View Post
darrell
i appreciate your time and effort considering rule changes and ways to make tournaments play faster
and you do have valid points to your point of view
but i dont think the small number of regular posters and an aggressive presenter should rock the world of one pocket and change the official onepocket.org rules
jmho
icbw
Larry,

Appreciate your considerations re rules also. And, as I am sure you agree, all sports/games are, and always have been, subject to rules changes.

This particular rule change, whatever it stems from has merit and should be considered as part of what this One Pocket.org has a mandate to do, write the official rules we play by.

This idea is already used in some other games, albeit in limited situations, but it is not a completely new or unheard of idea that we've never heard of or used. I don't see how it necessarily "rocks our world". It only has any effect on accidental fouls in that the opponent has an option to shoot or return the table. If he has a shot, he's gonna shoot, if not, the fouling player gets to shoot again which could very well end up being advantageous to him depending on what he does.

In the case of an intentional foul this new rule keeps a player who got legitimately trapped from being rewarded by forcing his opponent to also foul, thereby, eliminating most of the penalty for getting trapped. It also gives the player who created the trap his full reward for doing so. I cannot imagine anyone, given an opportunity to get rid of the intentional foul rule we use today, which is unfair and has a much bigger impact on the game than what I am proposing, not wanting to get rid of it.

Just my guess, but I think the way we play intentional fouls today, where each player commits two fouls before the original fouler is forced to make a legitimate shot is simply the result of the "three foul rule" which is being misused and was not the intent of that rule.

And, you are right, this new rule would also speed up the game.

__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-09-2019, 02:38 PM
darmoose darmoose is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,419
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NH Steve View Post
After any foul, the opponent has the option of passing back the position? So any "intentional" or on purpose -- not just illegal things like squeeze shots or ferule touches, etc?

Interesting idea -- I have to think about it a bit more. One thing that always concerns me with any new rule idea is, what are the unintended consequences?
Steve,

Understand and totally agree. Thanks for giving this some thought. To be clear for you, I mean ANY foul, intentional or otherwise. As is obvious the best rules have no exceptions.

After a CB scratch, ball in hand behind the line, your choice of who shoots. Failure to hit a rail, your choice where they sit. Intentional foul of any sort, your choice where they sit.

etc,etc

Happy to discuss further.

Darrell
__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.

Last edited by darmoose; 01-09-2019 at 02:45 PM. Reason: error
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-09-2019, 03:39 PM
El Chapo El Chapo is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,561
Default

Of all allies, who knew it would be me

Look, one pocket is a beautiful game. I can appreciate a player who first sees, then executes a good intentional to strengthen his position.

The problem is, let's just use an example so we can visualize something, a player bunts the cue ball two inches and freezes on a ball. Great shot! His opponent is trapped now. But, in my opinion, when I mentioned how beautiful a game one pocket was before, the only more beautiful thing would be if that player had to do that shot but legally.

Guys are also able to get out of traps way too easy with fouls. It really lessens the value of traps! This is why you see great players always trying to scrape balls in, because strong moving/ball positions are minimized by the ability to take scratches. I think what would happen if we used this rule, is traps would be much more likey to result in open shots, which I know everyone in here would like that. That may also result in faster games, but we'd have to try it to know of course.

On a more personal note, I have always completely loathed the flying balls off the table purposefully shots, and the following the cue ball in behind the ob shots. I have not had as much a problem with standard intentionals, but I definitely see the point here. Why make a "gutter ball" of a shot an advantage?!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-09-2019, 03:47 PM
El Chapo El Chapo is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,561
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NH Steve View Post
After any foul, the opponent has the option of passing back the position? So any "intentional" or on purpose -- not just illegal things like squeeze shots or ferule touches, etc?

Interesting idea -- I have to think about it a bit more. One thing that always concerns me with any new rule idea is, what are the unintended consequences?
I would ask you to look at that logic in reverse. If we played under some different criteria historically, then the "unintended consequences" of a new rule change - to our current rules - could be ridiculous things like players gaining an advantage by following a cueball into a pocket, or by launching cueballs and object balls off the table.

I just don't believe "we have always done it that way" (not that this was your argument) is EVER a valid reason, for anything in life. Women would not be able to vote, the earth may still be flat, people could still light up a cig on airplanes if we used that same criteria in our everyday lives, so you can see the harm thinking like that can do. "We have always played like that" mentality necessarily keeps you in the stone age. It is necessary to clear one's mind and think openly and objectively about these potential rule changes. I feel like I can say with confidence we simply refuse to do that in the one pocket community.

Last edited by El Chapo; 01-09-2019 at 03:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-09-2019, 05:59 PM
darmoose darmoose is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,419
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Chapo View Post
Of all allies, who knew it would be me

Look, one pocket is a beautiful game. I can appreciate a player who first sees, then executes a good intentional to strengthen his position.

The problem is, let's just use an example so we can visualize something, a player bunts the cue ball two inches and freezes on a ball. Great shot! His opponent is trapped now. But, in my opinion, when I mentioned how beautiful a game one pocket was before, the only more beautiful thing would be if that player had to do that shot but legally.

Guys are also able to get out of traps way too easy with fouls. It really lessens the value of traps! This is why you see great players always trying to scrape balls in, because strong moving/ball positions are minimized by the ability to take scratches. I think what would happen if we used this rule, is traps would be much more likey to result in open shots, which I know everyone in here would like that. That may also result in faster games, but we'd have to try it to know of course.

On a more personal note, I have always completely loathed the flying balls off the table purposefully shots, and the following the cue ball in behind the ob shots. I have not had as much a problem with standard intentionals, but I definitely see the point here. Why make a "gutter ball" of a shot an advantage?!
El Chapo,

Ha Ha , yes, who knew. I appreciate you comments and your honesty, and I know we've had words in the past. I hold no grudges with anybody, and have no idea what our previous disagreement was about. I may have said something that offended you and if so I am sorry. That was not my purpose in whatever we were arguing about.

Anyway, thanks again, It looks like you agree that this rule would be a good thing, and how simple, huh?

I often think that when some idea comes along that solves a problem that previously seemed to be unsolvable, "why didn't I think of that", so simple. Usually though I'm thinking about an idea that some other yokel had and made a million bucks off of.

I hope others, especially Steve, will honestly consider this, and your points are well taken about blindly sticking to what we've always done.

We'll see...
__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.
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 10:17 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.