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
  #11  
Old 01-09-2019, 06:32 PM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,249
Default

The other day I was talking to a player/friend in town about express OP, and he stated that any intentional foul should be ball in hand. He further stated that; you darn well know that when they do a full length of the table kick their intention is not to hit the ball but to put the cb behind those balls by the opponents pocket. I told him no one has brought up this idea of ball in hand, as of yet!
I then stated; "well during my MOT match against Scrzbil I kept trying to kick into the side rail and into the stack to drive a ball to the rail, but I was unable to get a clean hit on my intented ob thus did not get the connection to drive a ball to a rail. He responded; "you did not hit it hard enough". I said; "I did, but did not get a clean hit". He argued some more, and could not comprehend.

But I said I was glad the Darmoose Moving Forward rule was not enforce for my skill level has dropped for I can no longer get clean hits on my kick shots. And giving a ball to my opponent would of quickly doomed me, but if my skill level was higher I would not have a problem playing by that rule.

But keep your progressive ideas coming, and trust me they are not for not, because OP tournaments are growing and the numbers have to be pushed through. Tournament rules can become the rules, as we have seen happen in express 9-ball.

I really do not have a problem with whatever the player's meeting decides at these MOTs, for all the players are playing under the same rules! Whitey
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-09-2019, 09:16 PM
darmoose darmoose is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,415
Default

[QUOTE=Dennis "Whitey" Young;25060
But keep your progressive ideas coming, and trust me they are not for not, because OP tournaments are growing and the numbers have to be pushed through. Tournament rules can become the rules, as we have seen happen in express 9-ball.

I really do not have a problem with whatever the player's meeting decides at these MOTs, for all the players are playing under the same rules! Whitey[/QUOTE]

Whitey,

As your considering this suggestion please don't refer to it as a "progressive" idea, I'll lose my NRA card, and please, this is not "express one pocket"

Some may be "ascared" of this option thing. But, understand, after the foul the opponent gains NO offensive advantage. If he has a shot at his hole, he would have had it under today's rules. If he does not have a shot, he simply gets an option. He may not want to give the table back because the fouling player may have a shot to his hole. So, the primary effect of this suggestion is to put an end to intentional "touch" fouls by eliminating the incentive to do them.

Consider the case of scratching the CB in a pocket, CB in hand. Not too often is the incoming player gonna give away BIH.

I really think we all can agree "touch" fouls add nothing to the game except time to complete the game.


__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-09-2019, 10:24 PM
lll lll is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: vero beach fl
Posts: 14,549
Default

the intentional scratch around the stack is used to try to manipulate the combos that are on or off for you or him by more experienced players
you never know what a player will do after an intentional
a kick to an intentional is a skill shot
just some examples
in 9 ball going from push out to what they have now killed the game
killing the intentional foul may kill aspects of the game that is part of the nuance of onepocket
jmho
icbw
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-09-2019, 10:30 PM
lll lll is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: vero beach fl
Posts: 14,549
Default

darrell
i will say again
we have a dozen at most regular posters
you want such a small number to put a stamp on your idea that will go forward as endorsed by onepocket.org that will then influence onepocket around the world???
at the minimum a trial over time seeing how it works would be alot better
but i still would be against it because i am old fashioned
and think the game is fine the way it is
nothing personal
i think your idea is a very interesting idea
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-09-2019, 11:45 PM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,249
Default

Darmoose, I am a fan of your any foul OP shoot-out rule option. I never was a proponent of intentionals. Intentionals was never a part of my game anyway, not that I got to play much OP. But I did not play them nor did my opponents. I will play by most any rule in a tournament, except I will not play breaker racks their own in 9-ball.

I have floated the idea of only allowing two consecutive intentionals (one by each player) then if another is played then the opponent gets ball in hand option. I did not get much response.

Rules such as Darmoose is proposing is and always will be an alternative rule that tournaments could adopt. But, if the rule becomes main stream then eventually it will become a standard playing rule.

One example comes to mind; the CSI 8-ball break rule when the 8-ball is made on the break, is pretty popular. It is where the breaker has the option to spot the 8 and continue or re-rack and re-break. The old original rule was 8-ball on the break was a loss. But most every where players played it as a win. Another rule that has become somewhat main stream is a scratch on the break is ball in hand anywhere, not behind the line. Not a fan of this rule at all!

The 3 foul rule in OP is a wonderment as to when it started and why. Through these threads I learned it was not a rule at Johnston City. Whitey
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:05 AM
darmoose darmoose is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,415
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lll View Post
darrell
i will say again
we have a dozen at most regular posters
you want such a small number to put a stamp on your idea that will go forward as endorsed by onepocket.org that will then influence onepocket around the world???
at the minimum a trial over time seeing how it works would be alot better
but i still would be against it because i am old fashioned
and think the game is fine the way it is
nothing personal
i think your idea is a very interesting idea
Hey Larry,

I imagine Steve isn't too happy to know he only has a dozen (at most) regular posters.

Don't worry, I would never take your honest opinion personally, however as was said by EL Chapo, I would hope any opinion was supported by reason rather than "I'm just against all changes".

To answer your question, of course, that is what I want. I love OP as much as anybody. I play and gamble at it 3, 4, sometimes 5 times a week, but it ain't perfect. I think intentional fouls add nothing to the game and simply slow it down by subtracting from the score. I think simply that no one has ever figured out a way to get rid of them. In 30 or so years of playing, I have never seen anyone, amateur or professional, attempting to manipulate the balls in the stack to create a dead ball while taking an intentional foul. I have never heard anybody discussing anywhere that this is what they were doing. Maybe I am just dense. In any case if what you say were true, wouldn't that player love to have the next shot so he could score with that dead ball combination he created?

Likewise when a player pushes the CB up against an OB, intentionally fouling, or when he intentionally traps the CB against the inside of a pocket facing, he is not deploying some skill that adds to OP. He is simply trying to avoid the full penalty of being legitimately trapped, hoping that his opponent will make a mistake and sell out, or at least he will return the foul twice and the score will change enough to dilute the effect of the original trap. This is not a good thing for OP and I can't imagine it will be missed.

As for how rules come into existence, this is a rulemaking organization. How else would one pursue a rule change? I do hope that more than a dozen members comment and support their view with reason.

I agree with you that nine ball was ruined when they got away from pushout. I also agree that unintended consequences need to be explored. If you or anyone else sees any, they should be discussed and weighed against the benefits of this proposal. On balance, I see nothing right now that could outweigh the benefits of this rule change.

Thanks for the opportunity to answer your questions, hope we can discuss further. I wanna change your mind.
__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.

Last edited by darmoose; 01-10-2019 at 12:17 AM. Reason: error
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:37 AM
Jeff sparks Jeff sparks is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,922
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?

Only two times, not ďas many timesĒ... 3 foul rule needs to be used imo...

Other than that, I see no downside to the change, other than it takes a very strategic advantage away from the better player who is giving up weight to a lesser skilled player in a gambling game...

In a tournament format, it looks like it would work and help speed up games, if the 3 foul rule was used in conjunction with it...

However Iím sure there will be some deep thinkers who will come up with reasons why it might not be plausible, but thatís what youíre looking for, correct?

Until proven otherwise, Iím in the group thatís not opposed to giving it a strong consideration... I like it 👍 Good idea Darrell...
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-10-2019, 09:45 AM
darmoose darmoose is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,415
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff sparks View Post
Only two times, not “as many times”... 3 foul rule needs to be used imo...

Other than that, I see no downside to the change, other than it takes a very strategic advantage away from the better player who is giving up weight to a lesser skilled player in a gambling game...

In a tournament format, it looks like it would work and help speed up games, if the 3 foul rule was used in conjunction with it...

However I’m sure there will be some deep thinkers who will come up with reasons why it might not be plausible, but that’s what you’re looking for, correct?

Until proven otherwise, I’m in the group that’s not opposed to giving it a strong consideration... I like it �� Good idea Darrell...

Thanks Jeff,

We can always count on you to give an honest and thoughtful comment to questions/suggestions like this and others.

Yeah, the three foul rule would still be in effect, and so it would end the game if the shooter failed to make a legal shot on the third try. Of course, as you explain the incentive to even play the first intentional foul is gone, which is a good thing.

I know, at first, when you hear about this option to make a fouling player shoot again, it can be a little difficult to process. But, if members will just think about it a bit, I think they will reach the same conclusion as you.

Similar to how we used to play push out nine ball (when nine ball was a great game), this rule would eliminate a lot of luck from the game and emphasise skill, and as you observe, fix a long existing unfair strategy of using intentional fouls to change a game when gambling, and water down the results of a well played trap.

A little disappointing that so few have weighed in thus far on a serious idea that could do so much good for the game. The game of OP is a great game, but it would be even better with this rule change. You are right, it would also make the game go faster.

I hope the "deep thinkers" you refer to will take their shots and provide reason. Of course, I hope those that can see the benefits would express their opinion too.

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

Last edited by darmoose; 01-10-2019 at 09:52 AM. Reason: error
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:43 PM
jerry matchin jerry matchin is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,278
Default

The problem with passing the intentional foul back to your opponent without you losing a ball is problematic. In many situations, that is all you can do to potentially save or extend the game. That is, to get your opponent on fouls as well. For example, your opponent hits the opening break terrible and you end up in the stack and all the balls are open to his pocket. You have nothing else but to take a foul. If you can get him on two fouls you might stop him from running eight and out and just maybe put yourself where at least you can make a game of it. I can think of a lot of situations where your opponent just got lucky like corner hooks and etc. and there is nothing you can do. I DON'T LIKE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU CAN'T PLAY THE GAME ANY LONGER.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-10-2019, 04:01 PM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,249
Default

Darmoose, you have stated you play and/or gamble 3-5 times a week. Do you guys play by this rule? Have you brought up this suggestion to them? Also what do they think of your Darmoose Moving Forward, and do they play by it?

I brought up a rule suggestion of when the cue ball is in motion and interfered with then it should be an option to accept the cb in position or ball in hand, instead of no option and the opponent must accept the table as is.

The reasoning being if a player interferes with a cb in motion then it could end up in a horrible lock up position for the opponent, with no recourse other than to accept the next shot as is.

I received very little response. I think one person said it seemed reasonable. To me it is just common sense. Whitey
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 11:33 PM.


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.