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: 1,420
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 offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,258
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 offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: vero beach fl
Posts: 14,565
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: 7,114
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, 02:26 PM
darmoose darmoose is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,420
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
  #6  
Old 01-14-2019, 03:10 PM
bioactive bioactive is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darmoose View Post
Whitey,



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





Makes perfect sense. Has always bothered me about one pocket that the penalty for intentional fouls is not high enough.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-12-2019, 11:51 AM
androd's Avatar
androd androd is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Braunfels tx.
Posts: 7,114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by androd View Post
Not a bad idea ! Although I'm a lucky player, it probably wouldn't help me.
Again Not a bad idea, I like it !
__________________
Rod.

Rodney Stephens.
(e-mail) rod.stephens0105@att.net(e-mail) #713-973-0503 is now working
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-12-2019, 11:57 AM
darmoose darmoose is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,420
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by androd View Post
Again Not a bad idea, I like it !
Rod,

You are a man of (too) few words. Thank you again.

__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-12-2019, 02:28 AM
Scrzbill Scrzbill is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eagles Rest, Wa
Posts: 3,412
Default

[QUOTE=lll;250589]darrell

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

I remember a time when you came to OPORG to do WWYDís. Does anyone still do WWID, not WYWD? Now another thread has popped up to do Gradyís rule. The reason Gradyís rule isnít the rule is because more people than not like the end game. You canít just play it in tournaments to learn it, you would have to gamble too. No one wanted to gamble playing with a rule change that would significantly change the end game of one pocket. No one likes the wedge either. After the wedge was shattered, fewer and fewer players played it, unless they wanted to play a game that lasted five hours and a match a day. There is a guy who plays like that out here and heís a big time gambler. Itís his stik. There is no action between us.
It is aggravating at all the proposed rule changes people want to the MOT. We can make one change and see if that works. Forget changing the break. The last day, four players. Two winners. Two losers. Thatís it. If it goes to three am, we shoot them both, or all four. Thatís two changes, but WTH.
__________________
Coyotes, Eagles, and Deer, oh my!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
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
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 08:38 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.