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
  #41  
Old 01-11-2019, 04:47 PM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 824
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lll View Post
whitey
i couldnt find grady's rules under the game when i clicked on it.
could you provide a link where its posted please
having a section on "alternative rules" is an interesting idea.
the ten commandments written in stone can continue unchanged....
(ie THE RULES as they are now )
and an app for alternative rules could be available for those that want something new....
(ie grady's rules/darrell's rules etc )
OP.org as far as I know does not have a written depiction of the Grady Rule pertaining to 4 balls down table.

But, I think it is pretty simple and sell explanatory. When 4 balls are past the side pocket towards the head of the table (down table) then when other ball is also sent and remains down table, the nearest ball to the head rail is then spotted.
If you score a ball, plus send a 5th ball down table then I would assume the ball nearest the head rail gets spotted at the end of the inning.
Correct me if I am wrong. Whitey
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:21 PM
Jeff sparks Jeff sparks is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,902
Default

Darrell,

Iím curious how the thought originated...
When did you first think of passing the shot back to the person who fouled?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:22 PM
darmoose darmoose is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,194
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff sparks View Post
Darrell,

Iím curious how the thought originated...
When did you first think of passing the shot back to the person who fouled?
Jeff,

I'm not completely sure. I pay attention to rules discussions and I was reading another thread about trapping the CB in the face of the pocket and something about escalating this foul, I think at the DCC to unsportsmanlike and loss of game, the usual guys were involved (even you), I thought what a ridiculous idea, just adds to our rules, this needs to be stopped. I thought what if you had nothing to gain by doing that, or committing any intentional foul for that matter.

How to do that? In order to make it a simplification rather than a further complication, it has to apply across the board? How about after any and all fouls you can give the table back if you want? That made me think of the way we used to play pushout nine ball, yeah, why not?

So how and where will this apply? CB scratches (BIH) not likely. Failure to get a rail, maybe, the incoming guy ain't gonna complain and the guy that committed the foul, wouldn't he like another shot? The only guy that may complain is the guy who is caught in a trap and can't get out, and he deserves it (that's OP)

So, I wrote post #28 in that thread on 1/9/19 (right after your post). Then thought this could be good, should have it's own thread. (fat chance)

To be honest, I've lost some interest. There seems to be very little interest in doing anything about anything, just lots of talk and argument (which I am guilty of too).

Anyway, that's where it came from, thanks for asking and showing some interest, Jeff.
__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-12-2019, 01:28 AM
Scrzbill Scrzbill is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eagles Rest, Wa
Posts: 3,194
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
  #45  
Old 01-12-2019, 01:52 AM
Scrzbill Scrzbill is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eagles Rest, Wa
Posts: 3,194
Default

[QUOTE=Frank
I had a game with Billy Teeters a good while back where he already had four balls to the good and all the balls were within a foot and a half next to his pocket and I was corner hooked at the other end of the table on his side.
I took four or five internationals and he did the same. He spotted all his balls back on the table and then I pushed the cue ball out to what I thought was the hardest shot for him but it still was fairly easy. He shot and missed it and I wound up winning the game and then his backer pulled out. His backer said if you can't win that game I'm out.[/QUOTE]

Funny thing about Billy. If something rubs him the wrong way,he will quit. Baby Frank and quite a few of the boys were at CB’s when the scientist owned it. It was recently reopened and the players were all out to see if they could get action. Apparently Baby Frank and Teeters had had some previous incounters and the acrimony was thick. It was typical pool room banter only a bit harsher than normal. I wanted to play both but there was no way while these two were going at it. Off to the John I goes and who came busting in afterwards?, baby Frank. He said he would put me in against Billy. Now that’s a prop that could be had. So baby Frank disappears long enough for Billy and I to make a game. I win the first two. Frank comes back but for some reason Frank can’t keep his mouth shut trying to irritate Billy. There is no way to quiet him without blowing the partnership. Teeters is no one to mess with, as far as anyone knew, he always carried. Right in the middle of the next game Billy is tired of Frank and abruptly quits. I say forget about the game not wanting to blow a score down the line. My chance to score with Teeters is gone and now my opportunity to snap off Baby Frank is gone. We played by the rules of one pocket. Rotate breaks, owe one if you scratch. Cue ball fouls only and any ball touching the line is in. No re rack. No five ball bull. No time limit. All three games lasted under an hour.
__________________
Coyotes, Eagles, and Deer, oh my!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-12-2019, 04:37 AM
Jeff sparks Jeff sparks is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darmoose View Post
Jeff,

I'm not completely sure. I pay attention to rules discussions and I was reading another thread about trapping the CB in the face of the pocket and something about escalating this foul, I think at the DCC to unsportsmanlike and loss of game, the usual guys were involved (even you), I thought what a ridiculous idea, just adds to our rules, this needs to be stopped. I thought what if you had nothing to gain by doing that, or committing any intentional foul for that matter.

How to do that? In order to make it a simplification rather than a further complication, it has to apply across the board? How about after any and all fouls you can give the table back if you want? That made me think of the way we used to play pushout nine ball, yeah, why not?

So how and where will this apply? CB scratches (BIH) not likely. Failure to get a rail, maybe, the incoming guy ain't gonna complain and the guy that committed the foul, wouldn't he like another shot? The only guy that may complain is the guy who is caught in a trap and can't get out, and he deserves it (that's OP)

So, I wrote post #28 in that thread on 1/9/19 (right after your post). Then thought this could be good, should have it's own thread. (fat chance)

To be honest, I've lost some interest. There seems to be very little interest in doing anything about anything, just lots of talk and argument (which I am guilty of too).

Anyway, that's where it came from, thanks for asking and showing some interest, Jeff.
Well I still believe it has merit...

Even though there are some heavyweights here at OP.O who have not expressed an opinion, which I am curious about also, I believe it could work very well in a tournament format...

Makes me wish I was younger and more gung-ho again about things, because if I’m seeing the reasoning correctly, this could be a good thing for one pocket and something I might get behind and try to gather more data and opinion in order to push for incorporation into actuality...

Perhaps members are shy about other people’s feelings and just don’t want to express an open opinion about this new idea for one pocket, or they are, ( just as I was ) not sure how it would play out... It’s a reasonable assumption to fear criticism from open expression, and it’s also reasonable to not want to express an opinion of something one is not completely sure about, so while I do understand some reluctance, I also wish people would try harder to think your idea through and present their opinions, whether they are positive, or negative...
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-12-2019, 07:15 AM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 824
Default

Darmoose, I would not get discourage on this one, for I think your thread has gone quite well, and the responders have been keeping on point respectfully.

I am with Jeff on this, it has merit. I actually never knew of intentionals as being part of the game anyway. Never played an intentional nor did my opponents. I always shot my way out of a legal kick shot that ended up against the side of the rack.

Heck, I'd play by your Darmoose Moving Forward alternative rule combined with this foul rule accept or give it back. I'd just have to iron out my kick shots to get up to speed to make legal hit/shot % to go up.

Whatever rule at the MOT or other tourny's the players agree to, I am in if I am there, because we all play by the same rules! Whitey
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-12-2019, 07:26 AM
NH Steve's Avatar
NH Steve NH Steve is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 7,874
Default

If you look at our official rules, in many places there are alternate rules that have a history of being popular in different locales, etc. So it is not out of the realm of possiblity to try some alternate rules that would start there, and if they were to grow in popularity then ultimately who knows, the old rule could become the alternate rule (such as essentially what happened with an object ball coming off the table -- it used to not be a foul, but now it is, as the standard).

And particularly with all the issues of how long tournaments run and the worst case of current or potential tournament hosts possibly avoiding One Pocket because they are concerned about time issues -- I am very much in favor of seriously exploring time saving alternative rules that might mitigate those issues and encourage more One Pocket tournaments.

I have already collected a few ideas and bunched them into sort of an express version of One Pocket. So some of the ideas might work in that direction, but some of them also might work (like the Grady rule) as alternatives built right into options in our rules that are highlighted particularly for tournament directors to control match/tournament time over-runs. Kind of a menu of back-up options in case a tournament director feels they need to rein in the time matches are taking. So this paragraph describes two ways these good ideas could be used.

So yes, I am listening.
__________________
"One Pocket, it's an epidemic and there ain't no cure."
-- Strawberry Brooks
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-12-2019, 07:40 AM
lll lll is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: vero beach fl
Posts: 14,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff sparks View Post
Well I still believe it has merit...
I also wish people would try harder to think your idea through and present their opinions, whether they are positive, or negative...
jeff
opinions are like you know what
everyone has one............
EDIT i dont want to sound like a smart ass ...some peoples opinions carry more respect and merit than others
darrell's idea IS interesting
but
to change the rules on an abstract idea and the opinion of a few is simply CRAZY (jmho)
as i said in another post
go try it out in real onepocket matches/tournaments
if its found to be a reasonable way to play it can be added to the list of alternative rules along with re-rack, and grady's rules.
but to make it the new standard (OFFICIAL) way to play
would be a mistake in my opinion
onepocket has been played for over one hundred years
it is becoming increasingly popular with the rules as they are.
it takes years to learn the game and especially the end game and when to take a foul
why make up a new game since if darrell's rule becomes the OFFICIAL rule
we now have a new game of onepocket

jmho
icbw

Last edited by lll; 01-12-2019 at 12:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-12-2019, 10:48 AM
darmoose darmoose is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,194
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff sparks View Post
Well I still believe it has merit...

Even though there are some heavyweights here at OP.O who have not expressed an opinion, which I am curious about also, I believe it could work very well in a tournament format...

Makes me wish I was younger and more gung-ho again about things, because if I’m seeing the reasoning correctly, this could be a good thing for one pocket and something I might get behind and try to gather more data and opinion in order to push for incorporation into actuality...

Perhaps members are shy about other people’s feelings and just don’t want to express an open opinion about this new idea for one pocket, or they are, ( just as I was ) not sure how it would play out... It’s a reasonable assumption to fear criticism from open expression, and it’s also reasonable to not want to express an opinion of something one is not completely sure about, so while I do understand some reluctance, I also wish people would try harder to think your idea through and present their opinions, whether they are positive, or negative...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis "Whitey" Young View Post
Darmoose, I would not get discourage on this one, for I think your thread has gone quite well, and the responders have been keeping on point respectfully.

I am with Jeff on this, it has merit. I actually never knew of intentionals as being part of the game anyway. Never played an intentional nor did my opponents. I always shot my way out of a legal kick shot that ended up against the side of the rack.

Heck, I'd play by your Darmoose Moving Forward alternative rule combined with this foul rule accept or give it back. I'd just have to iron out my kick shots to get up to speed to make legal hit/shot % to go up.

Whatever rule at the MOT or other tourny's the players agree to, I am in if I am there, because we all play by the same rules! Whitey
Thank you guys once again, Those are encouraging expressions of support. I don't understand why so many are reluctant to express their opinion. There's nobody gonna bite your head off, or embarrass anyone here for expressing an opinion. I do not take anyone's views personally, so long as there is no personal attack involved.

Larry has emerged as the most vocal, let's say, against this idea and while I don't agree with his opinion or his idea as to how something like this should be pursued, there is no animosity involved. I would simply like to change his mind.

Some want to label me as some malcontent that lives to change OP. Not so, I go play OP almost every day (by the current rules) and love the game and play no other. I love the nuances, the subtleties, and strategies. I don't love "intentional fouls" for several reasons. It is not comfortable to be the only, or one of very few, who will openly discuss and support an idea in the face of so many "traditionalists" who "hear no problem, see no problem, and speak of no problem".

Maybe we should be discussing something more basic, so, here I go again.

Are intentional fouls used as a strategy to lengthen games, change the score, and lessen the value of a legally applied trap good for OP or not good for OP? I would hope members would discuss this question, and for now let's not labor over what the solution will be, unless you just have to do so, which is certainly ok with me.

Anybody willing to say what they think......
__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.

Last edited by darmoose; 01-12-2019 at 11:06 AM. Reason: error
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 09:28 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.