One Pocket Question? Ball on Break
- Thread starter Bigtruck
- Start date
Terry Hanna
Verified Member
i dont like it 1 pocket has been played forever without that rule
and goes against the 1st rule in pool make a ball and keep shooting
why punish the shooter for making a good shot bad rule imo
and goes against the 1st rule in pool make a ball and keep shooting
why punish the shooter for making a good shot bad rule imo
tylerdurden
Verified Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2011
- Messages
- 1,959
Rerack when both players agree should always be implemented.
So if all the balls go uptable and it's 0 to 0 the guys can rerack if they choose.
So if all the balls go uptable and it's 0 to 0 the guys can rerack if they choose.
NH Steve
Administrator
There is an accustats match from Grady's 2000 Legends of One Pocket in Portland ME, where in one match I think Parica and his opponent made balls on the break about 4 out of the 8 games. There was a lot of fire-power on display there, but it was still a fun competitive match! I have not heard complaints -- unlike the racking and soft/controlled breaking issues the pros are having with 9-ball. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Bankin Ben
Verified Member
IMO if you make a ball on the break in one pocket you should be rewarded with keeping the table. I don't think there is much way to in the words of Chris Miller "do dad" the rack. You want all the balls touching and frozen for a good result. If one happens to go, good for you. It's been my experience it just dosen't happen that often.
gulfportdoc
Verified Member
In normal competitive play there doesn't seem to be any reason for a rule to re-rack when a ball pockets on the break. It's a fairly uncommon occurrence. The break is considered an advantage, and having a ball drop on the break shot is one of the pluses.
However it might be worth discussing for the rare circumstance when there's a table which allows a ball to pocket on the break in a high percentage of instances. In that case the breaker would be often awarded an automatic point simply by breaking. On the other hand, the argument could be made that both players get to break alternatively, so there's no more advantage for the breaker than there is normally. It would put just that much more premium on winning the break on the lag. Consequently the proposition seems like a wash.
If the rule were tried, though, it seems like it would be better to simply spot the ball, rather than to re-rack all the balls.
Where such a rule for playing on a table on which a ball often pockets on the break would be more interesting would be in stakes games. How would making a ball on the break be accounted for in handicapping? It would certainly influence, if not completely change, how spots are determined. For example, giving 8-7 and all the breaks where it's known that a ball is often made on the break would be much different from giving 8-7 and the breaks on a normal table.
We'd have to get Cardone to weigh in here to show us how that would change 1P handicapping.
~Doc
However it might be worth discussing for the rare circumstance when there's a table which allows a ball to pocket on the break in a high percentage of instances. In that case the breaker would be often awarded an automatic point simply by breaking. On the other hand, the argument could be made that both players get to break alternatively, so there's no more advantage for the breaker than there is normally. It would put just that much more premium on winning the break on the lag. Consequently the proposition seems like a wash.
If the rule were tried, though, it seems like it would be better to simply spot the ball, rather than to re-rack all the balls.
Where such a rule for playing on a table on which a ball often pockets on the break would be more interesting would be in stakes games. How would making a ball on the break be accounted for in handicapping? It would certainly influence, if not completely change, how spots are determined. For example, giving 8-7 and all the breaks where it's known that a ball is often made on the break would be much different from giving 8-7 and the breaks on a normal table.
We'd have to get Cardone to weigh in here to show us how that would change 1P handicapping.
~Doc
jrhendy
Verified Member
I like the rerack rule for tournaments.
I think most of us would rather hang the ball and hide it on our break than make it.
I think most of us would rather hang the ball and hide it on our break than make it.
wincardona
Verified Member
Imo it's not close to being right, why? Would you take the "hole in one" away in the game of golf? Or a kick off return in football? Why should the ball pocketed on the break be taken away? There's a certain amount of luck and skill with all the above, and to alter our game in any way would be an attack on the momentum our game has picked up. We have the best game played on a pool table, don't understand why some people just don't get it.
Dr. Bill
Dr. Bill
Miller
Verified Member
petie
Verified Member
I'm with Dr. Bill and Steve and anybody who is against this rule. I really think we need to clarify the mission here. Is the mission to change One Pocket from what it has always been and what we fell in love with? If that is the case, I'm out. If the mission is to CLARIFY the rules where they need it and to act as an advisory board to neophytes who have no clue but who are running tournaments and leagues, then I'm in favor of this mission. That is why I am against the use of jump cues, in favor of using the edge of the ball when determining that the ball near the head string is playable or out of play, bla, bla, bla. In short, if Dr Bill and Androd are for it, so am I.
wincardona
Verified Member
In normal competitive play there doesn't seem to be any reason for a rule to re-rack when a ball pockets on the break. It's a fairly uncommon occurrence. The break is considered an advantage, and having a ball drop on the break shot is one of the pluses. ( [B]( That's correct, an ace in tennis is a plus for the server in tennis just like a ball on the break is a plus for the breaker playing one pocket. It's a legal shot that is enhanced with a stroke and an accurate hit, he's earned it and should be rewarded. /COLOR]
[/B]
However it might be worth discussing for the rare circumstance when there's a table which allows a ball to pocket on the break in a high percentage of instances. ( Imo, this would be an exception that would be worth considering, however, only in gambling matches could you alter the rule, not in tournament play.) In that case the breaker would be often awarded an automatic point simply by breaking. On the other hand, the argument could be made that both players get to break alternatively, so there's no more advantage for the breaker than there is normally. (Correct again, Stroud differs here which imo isn't relevant with the reason why to change the rule.) It would put just that much more premium on winning the break on the lag. Consequently the proposition seems like a wash.
If the rule were tried, though, it seems like it would be better to simply spot the ball, rather than to re-rack all the balls.
Where such a rule for playing on a table on which a ball often pockets on the break would be more interesting would be in stakes games. How would making a ball on the break be accounted for in handicapping? It would certainly influence, if not completely change, how spots are determined. For example, giving 8-7 and all the breaks where it's known that a ball is often made on the break would be much different from giving 8-7 and the breaks on a normal table.
We'd have to get Cardone to weigh in here to show us how that would change 1P handicapping. (Your above statement states the obvious Doc, yes you're correct again. Any one who gives a ball and the break on a table that is overly generous in giving up balls on the break should match up with me.)
~Doc
You make a lot of good points Doc, and if you read my post above you already know that i'm against modifying our game, in any way.
By the way..don't try to give up the break on a table that gives up balls on the break, never pea against the wind, and don't pull the mask off The Lone Ranger and don't mess around with Bill.
Dr. Bill
androd
Verified Member
LSJohn
Verified Member
To take it a step further, give the breaker the option of spotting or re-breaking. That would allow the breaker to keep some of the benefit of having made a ball.
I'm ambivalent. I don't oppose change on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" principle. "Ain't broke" dosen't meant there's no room for improvement, and whether a change actually improves can be learned through experimentation.
What is the relative amount of luck and skill that plays into making a ball on the break? I think the luck element is at least equal to skill.
However, can't intentionally hitting the head ball a little thinner -- second ball heavier -- be done intentionally to increase the likelihood, and isn't there some risk associated with that choice?
By the way, while we're talking about change, I'm pretty sure I have a promoter/TC considering an experiment in a "reverse foul" tournament (fouls credit a ball to the opponent.)
One Pocket Ghost
Verified Member
I'm not in favor of a change re. making a ball on the break..however, that said...
If I were the tournament director, and the tournaments producers told me that they wanted me to initiate a rule change for their tournament, re. making a ball on the break - my rule change would sure as hell not be to re-rack the balls and break again..that's an extremely ill conceived option in making a change...for example: The breaker makes a ball on the break - has to re-break - on this subsequent break, he hits the rack perfect, but the corner ball leaks out from the side of the rack that he broke from, and ends up sitting in front of his opponents pocket = How's this guy gonna like that? - How fair and equitable was that result, due to that rule change?....and spotting the ball that the breaker made is also a bad rule-change choice - that wrongly penalizes the breaker...
So then, as tournament director, if asked to make a change..the rule change that I would implement, is simple, doesn't change the game much, and still rewards the breaker for having made the ball on the break: The breaker always plays one-and-safe - meaning, that if the breaker makes a ball on the break, he keeps it, but can't run any more balls, and has to instead play a safety next...
I've actually already played with this rule many times - with a guy that I used to gamble some years back - he didn't like his opponent making a ball on the break against him, so I suggested this rule, he liked it, and so that's the way we always played.
- Ghost
If I were the tournament director, and the tournaments producers told me that they wanted me to initiate a rule change for their tournament, re. making a ball on the break - my rule change would sure as hell not be to re-rack the balls and break again..that's an extremely ill conceived option in making a change...for example: The breaker makes a ball on the break - has to re-break - on this subsequent break, he hits the rack perfect, but the corner ball leaks out from the side of the rack that he broke from, and ends up sitting in front of his opponents pocket = How's this guy gonna like that? - How fair and equitable was that result, due to that rule change?....and spotting the ball that the breaker made is also a bad rule-change choice - that wrongly penalizes the breaker...
So then, as tournament director, if asked to make a change..the rule change that I would implement, is simple, doesn't change the game much, and still rewards the breaker for having made the ball on the break: The breaker always plays one-and-safe - meaning, that if the breaker makes a ball on the break, he keeps it, but can't run any more balls, and has to instead play a safety next...
I've actually already played with this rule many times - with a guy that I used to gamble some years back - he didn't like his opponent making a ball on the break against him, so I suggested this rule, he liked it, and so that's the way we always played.
- Ghost
androd
Verified Member
I don't know about tourneys. The people I play, about 95% play the way I like, which is if either of us makes one on the break it's the opponent's shot.
Rod.
Rod.
jrhendy
Verified Member
That is a new one for me, but I would not mind trying that.
androd
Verified Member
It rarely comes up. I can't remember anyone getting a lot of balls (besides me).
I started because the tables will make but the corner ball usually comes out when one is made, not always. I don't try to make one on the break, so I'm rarely punished.
I first saw this when Frost and Dippy were playing.
I also have a lot of games where my opponent only goes to 6 or 7 and making one on the break gets them a few and I still need 10/12.
Rod.
Last edited:
tylerdurden
Verified Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2011
- Messages
- 1,959
Some wise words
I don't like this particular rule change at all because it would not really do anything productive imo. It would actually be counterproductive I think.
For me personally, from my outcast perspective :heh, things that aren't progressing are in danger of dying. You've got to move things forward, and evolve them with the times. People have to think we could possibly be looking at nobody playing one pocket it 100 years. It's possible if we are resistant to change.
Even the most steadfast sports like baseball for example, go through rule changes more often than you may think. Some major changes mostly in the distant past, and many minor ones more recently. Designated hitters are relatively new, they have gotten a wildcard spot not too long ago, some new teams. The way stadiums are made differs too, with fans being much closer to the action I'd say. Some of these are not rule changes, but the real point is, they did refine the game and thoughtfully progressed according to perceived demands.
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/rulechng.shtml
Never making a single rule change since inception is pretty unique in the world of sports, at least the surviving sports. Every single sport you can think of has refined its rules quite extensively over the years. It's not a sin to improve on the game you love!!
Last edited: