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
  #31  
Old 07-04-2019, 01:30 PM
darmoose darmoose is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by catkins View Post
The problem I see with your suggestion is that simply passing back a shot to your opponent is very often not going to help the innocent player, because the offending player might very well have maneuvered the cue ball and object balls so that the orientation definitely favors the offending player. How does that create any fairness in penalty for the innocent player if they have nothing to gain from either shooting where the balls lie, and even worse if they pass the shot back to their guilty opponent so that the guilty player can further improve THEIR situation and put the innocent player deeper in trouble???


I don't actually see this as a problem but a benefit of the rule, as it make it vital that if your going to take intentional fouls they have to be hard to give back (similar to push outs in 9 ball).

]
I am not advocating for or against this rule but the aspect you have highlighted I think is the part I like the most about it in creating a situation where the intentional foul has to be a thoughtful skillful shot. The important thing about rules in my mind are consistency not fairness in my mind as well so that any time a given thing occurs it results in the same penalty so that there is never any room for argument. That is why in some ways the bih for obstructing cue ball either needs to include double hits or I don't feel it can be implemented properly.
Catkins,

I pretty much agree with everything you have said below. Rules have to be simple, consistent, and without ambiguity lest we encourage argument. What could be simpler, more consistent, or provide less ambiguity than "After ANY foul the incoming player has the OPTION to shoot or give back the shot at hand".

Steve,

I am afraid I must disagree with you completely on your statement. I think that more often than not (by far actually) having the option to return the shot to the fouling player will benefit the "innocent" player enormously. I am having a hard time conjuring up a scenario where you could be right, but even if you can enlighten me, I'll bet it will be a very rare situation, not a "very often" situation.

I am taking nothing away that exists today. You can still play an intentional. I can still play a return intentional if I choose to do so. The 3 foul rule still applies. Only being "rewarded" by luck is being lessened, and rewarding skill being legally applied is uplifted.

But, I am nothing if not open minded. So. please share with me and the board the many and varied situations where the "innocent" player would be better off without this option.

If we are to get past the abstract objections to any changes in our rules, we need to discuss specifics, and not just broad generalized objections without some evidence in support.

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

Last edited by darmoose; 07-04-2019 at 03:06 PM. Reason: error
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-04-2019, 01:48 PM
NH Steve's Avatar
NH Steve NH Steve is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 8,312
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darmoose View Post
Catkins,

I pretty much agree with everything you have said above. Rules have to be simple, consistent, and without ambiguity lest we encourage argument. What could be simpler, more consistent, or provide less ambiguity than "After ANY foul the incoming player has the OPTION to shoot or give back the shot at hand".

Steve,

I am afraid I must disagree with you completely on your statement. I think that more often than not (by far actually) having the option to return the shot to the fouling player will benefit the "innocent" player enormously. I am having a hard time conjuring up a scenario where you could be right, but even if you can enlighten me, I'll bet it will be a very rare situation, not a "very often" situation.

I am taking nothing away that exists today. You can still play an intentional. I can still play a return intentional if I choose to do so. The 3 foul rule still applies. Only being "rewarded" by luck is being lessened, and rewarding skill being legally applied is uplifted.

But, I am nothing if not open minded. So. please share with me and the board the many and varied situations where the "innocent" player would be better off without this option.

If we are to get past the abstract objections to any changes in our rules, we need to discuss specifics, and not just broad generalized objections without some evidence in support.

Well I don't know about you lol, but when I take an intentional foul, I'm going to say 90% of the time it is for the purpose of leaving the cue ball on the side of the stack or behind balls so that my opponent is going to come to the table with the cue ball behind balls facing my pocket of course, not their pocket. The whole point of the intentional being to accomplish that along with escaping trouble of course. If I have left my opponent something productive for them to do from there, then I did not do my job. If I did my job, and my opponent would like to pass the shot back, I should most of the time be able to nudge something in my preferred direction because I am facing that way lol

The main exception being of course, to roll to a spot up table somewhere to try to escape a trap. Well then in the case of a pass back, you might have a point -- or not -- it still would depend on where all the balls are and what either shooter can see/do from that spot. But even there it is definitely no guarantee that the innocent player would be able to benefit with passing the shot back.
__________________
"One Pocket, it's an epidemic and there ain't no cure."
-- Strawberry Brooks
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-04-2019, 01:56 PM
darmoose darmoose is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crabbcatjohn View Post
Are you FOR adding more BIH or against it? I don't understand?
Lagging into the stack or kicking three rails behind the opponents balls etc is used by the best players against each other all the time to escape death traps. Using it against a weaker player is also part of the game as well.

John,

I am clearly not advocating for more BIH's. And you can still lag into the stack or three rails into the back of the stack all you want (well, at least twice, before you lose the game). Just recognize that this lagging is identified as a penalized "illegal" shot, and should not be rewarded by forcing the player that put you into a "death trap" with a legal shot to take a foul as well, or release you from the "death trap". You may find that after one kick you are in a better position to escape the "death trap" (assuming the shot is returned to you), and so, go at it.

Do you not think that a "death trap" legally applied should be rewarded?

Sure, players use the lag as you describe it, there's nothing beautiful about it. If it did not offer the benefit it currently does, we would see more creativity and risk taking to get out of difficult situations. Lastly, there is nothing honorable or positive about a better player using this tactic to change the score of a game to benefit himself. The tactic carries negative connotations about the game, and I doubt that any player finding himself on the short end of that stick (where we ALL can be at times) would disagree.
__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-04-2019, 02:10 PM
lll lll is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: vero beach fl
Posts: 14,400
Default

having the skill to kick 3 rails to a target should not be penalized
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-04-2019, 02:22 PM
darmoose darmoose is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NH Steve View Post
Well I don't know about you lol, but when I take an intentional foul, I'm going to say 90% of the time it is for the purpose of leaving the cue ball on the side of the stack or behind balls so that my opponent is going to come to the table with the cue ball behind balls facing my pocket of course, not their pocket. The whole point of the intentional being to accomplish that along with escaping trouble of course. If I have left my opponent something productive for them to do from there, then I did not do my job. If I did my job, and my opponent would like to pass the shot back, I should most of the time be able to nudge something in my preferred direction because I am facing that way lol

The main exception being of course, to roll to a spot up table somewhere to try to escape a trap. Well then in the case of a pass back, you might have a point -- or not -- it still would depend on where all the balls are and what either shooter can see/do from that spot. But even there it is definitely no guarantee that the innocent player would be able to benefit with passing the shot back.
Steve,

I would have to agree with you that vast majority of the time when you choose to take an intentional it is because you are in trouble and you see no other reasonable escape (you don't normally take an intentional unless you are in trouble, do you?). Trouble like me, for example, locating one or more balls near my hole and leaving you no shot to your hole and no access to those balls near my hole.

I fail to see how, if I have created a trap with consequences, you can benefit by
nudging the CB into your side of the stack or lagging any number of rails the CB onto my side of the stack. In all other scenarios you might invision, I can't imagine how having the "option" could be worse than not having it.

Can you think of a specific situation where I would be better off not having the option?

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

Last edited by darmoose; 07-04-2019 at 02:53 PM. Reason: error
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-04-2019, 02:29 PM
darmoose darmoose is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lll View Post
having the skill to kick 3 rails to a target should not be penalized
You do realize that it already is, and has been for many decades.

Are you advocating that we should remove the penalty for kicking 3 rails and failing to contact a rail after hitting a ball?
__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.

Last edited by darmoose; 07-04-2019 at 02:57 PM. Reason: error
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-04-2019, 03:02 PM
lll lll is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: vero beach fl
Posts: 14,400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darmoose View Post
You do realize that it already is, and has been for many decades.

Are you advocating that we should remove the penalty for kicking 3 rails and failing to contact a rail after hitting a ball?
Of course not
I am just Opposed to what you are proposing :
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-04-2019, 03:27 PM
crabbcatjohn crabbcatjohn is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Benton, Ky.
Posts: 2,350
Default

Is this just a idea your throwing out there for a major one pocket rule change Darrell? Or have you actually played this way and know from experience the results? I've never heard of it before now.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-04-2019, 04:25 PM
NH Steve's Avatar
NH Steve NH Steve is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 8,312
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darmoose View Post
Steve,

I would have to agree with you that vast majority of the time when you choose to take an intentional it is because you are in trouble and you see no other reasonable escape (you don't normally take an intentional unless you are in trouble, do you?). Trouble like me, for example, locating one or more balls near my hole and leaving you no shot to your hole and no access to those balls near my hole.

I fail to see how, if I have created a trap with consequences, you can benefit by
nudging the CB into your side of the stack or lagging any number of rails the CB onto my side of the stack. In all other scenarios you might invision, I can't imagine how having the "option" could be worse than not having it.

Can you think of a specific situation where I would be better off not having the option?

darmoose, I don't think I actually said what you are agreeing with lol. What I said was
Quote:
...when I take an intentional foul, I'm going to say 90% of the time it is for the purpose of leaving the cue ball on the side of the stack or behind balls so that my opponent is going to come to the table with the cue ball behind balls facing my pocket of course, not their pocket.
So I just took an intentional foul in order to leave you on the wrong side of the balls (wrong side for YOU), and I executed the intentional just about how I wanted to (how is that for fantasy lol), and you think you are going to benefit from passing the shot back to me, now that I have rearranged things so that the cue ball is now facing the other balls on the right side of the balls for ME, not YOU???

This reminds me of Grady's comments about why you don't play safe to the "wrong side of the stack" because if you do, what Grady used to say was something to the effect that "most good players will find a way to exploit the fact that you left them on the wrong side of the stack."

One or both of us is definitely not understanding the other here, because I definitely do not see how that situation would be inclined to benefit the incoming (innocent) player by passing the situation back imho lol.
__________________
"One Pocket, it's an epidemic and there ain't no cure."
-- Strawberry Brooks
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-04-2019, 04:49 PM
darmoose darmoose is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crabbcatjohn View Post
Is this just a idea your throwing out there for a major one pocket rule change Darrell? Or have you actually played this way and know from experience the results? I've never heard of it before now.
John,

You may have missed it, but I have talked about this on several occasions before, and many others have commented on it. I have not played any this way, however, I consider that comment to be a "red herring". I am sure you are experienced enough to visualize how this rule would play out, I certainly think I can. I doubt anybody has played adding more BIH's for fouls either which are being discussed here.

Any time your opponent commits a foul, what 6, 8, 10 times a game, you have an option, accept the shot or not. You are not going to give the shot back when you have a BIH (after a pocket scratch), so you would only consider it on failures to hit a rail after OB contact, or double hits, and only when you feel disadvantaged (like stuck behind the stack or a ball up table) due to your opponent either intentionally or accidentally putting you there while committing a foul.

The overall effect would be to reduce the reward for luck or taking intentional fouls, both of which are rewarded today to the detriment of the game. It would also no doubt insure a better reward for a legally executed trap. It would also encourage players to be more creative in escaping a trap and taking more risks.

It is really a very simple small change, easy to grasp, that would have several beneficial effects on the game, unless you like seeing pros line up pennies along the rail, or someone winning because they got lucky while fouling.

I don't expect anyone to want to immediately adopt this, but if rules changes are ever in the works, this has to be considered.

__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.
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 10:55 AM.


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.