A heartbreaker - Alex needs 1 ball to win the match and Ike is stuck. He tries the z-kick safety (the right choice, I thought), but the CB rolls long, he scratches and sells the farm.
A heartbreaker - Alex needs 1 ball to win the match and Ike is stuck. He tries the z-kick safety (the right choice, I thought), but the CB rolls long, he scratches and sells the farm.
Both Ike and Alex looked like they thought it was odd. What do you think? Did Ike lose to a funny roll?
I superimposed multiple frames from the video to show the exact CB path - the dashed line is the equal angle "theoretical" path. All tables roll a little long on these lag kicks, but this seems a little much to me. My experience is mostly on GCs, but I thought Diamonds were supposed to rebound shorter...?
pj
chgo
View attachment 14884
Just finished watching game between Sylver and Rafeal and I thought I would conduct a little experiment on this as well as the Scott/ Sylver games.
I applied the "going forward" rules to these games as best i could, recognizing that I couldn't remove balls. However, it didn't appear that this made much difference.
The results were:
Rafeal made 4 fouls and Sylver made 2 fouls.
Sylver made 2 additional balls, and Rafeal made 6 additional balls to win the game.
The game would have ended at 31:45 instead it actually ended at 42:30; the "going forward" rule would have saved 10:45 or about 25%.
On the other hand in the four games between Sylver and Scott there was only one foul, commited by Sylver in the whole four games. The games took 13.5, 4.0, 10.0, and 4.0 minutes, so no effect with the "going forward" rule.
Doesn't say alot, except perhaps that the rule is only effective when some fouls are involved.
Incidentally, in the first game between Scott/ Sylver at the 3:56 mark it appears that Sylver fouls while kicking the 8 ball and nobody called it.
It's tough to evaluate the actual effect because with the Moose Rule, the penalty for a foul is larger so we should expect to see fewer fouls. Time savings wouldn't come so much from the increased penalty directly but rather from the fact that people would play fewer intentionals -- presumably in ways that are more offense-oriented and speed up games.
I agree it’s very difficult to evaluate what would actually happen speed wise. I can’t help but think though, as moose pointed out in a way, fast games would go fast under either rule. But, games that get much more technical and one or both players are in a very tight spot (like frozen to the stack etc), are going to move much faster. Those “technical” games seem to be very prevalent in one pocket.