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 07-04-2019, 07:00 PM
darmoose darmoose is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,313
Default

Steve,

You sure that 90% of the intentionals you take are offensive in nature, and not when you are in trouble? You must be one of those sharpshooter guys that I been talking about that uses intentionals to change the game.

Surely you don't think that having no option is better than having one. Worse case scenario for me is we both take two and then you gotta give it up. But, if you don't get perfect with your first, I would make you take another (not likely you can move the stack without fouling).

Apparently you are arguing that this rule is toothless and doesn't change much, and while I disagree, I like your argument as it could make it easier to adopt someday.

Alternatively, crafting tiny new rules to address tiny little problems (sometimes with exceptions) is not good for the game.

Good luck
__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-04-2019, 07:33 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,

You sure that 90% of the intentionals you take are offensive in nature, and not when you are in trouble? You must be one of those sharpshooter guys that I been talking about that uses intentionals to change the game.

Surely you don't think that having no option is better than having one. Worse case scenario for me is we both take two and then you gotta give it up. But, if you don't get perfect with your first, I would make you take another (not likely you can move the stack without fouling).

Apparently you are arguing that this rule is toothless and doesn't change much, and while I disagree, I like your argument as it could make it easier to adopt someday.

Alternatively, crafting tiny new rules to address tiny little problems (sometimes with exceptions) is not good for the game.

Good luck
darmoose, I keep feeling like when you reply you have re-written and misrepresented what I actually said. How about you actually quote the comment that I made that you wish to respond to instead of rewriting it to suit your point, when apparently what I actually said does not quite fit the dialogue you are intent on.

Let me try again. I think it is safe to say that somewhere about 90% of the time I take a scratch, I am trying to "reposition the cue ball" from where it is left by my opponent in a manner that is facing THEIR pocket, and instead I am trying to relocate the cue ball so it facing MY pocket, preferably behind balls so that I have turned the tables even though it might cost me a ball. The other 10% (OK maybe it is more than 10%) I am probably rolling to what looks like a safe small area at the far end of the table.

The other thing I am saying is that there is positively no guarantee that "passing back" either of those situations is going to help my innocent opponent. (PS I like the sound of that -- my "innocent opponent" lol). ESPECIALLY if I have been successful in reversing the direction of the cue ball to the object balls toward MY POCKET, when I had earlier come to the table with the cue ball facing MY OPPONENT's pocket. If indeed I did succeed in turning around the way the cue ball is facing the object balls and now they are facing MY POCKET, then I am going to say most of the time (maybe not all), HELL YEAH pass it back and let me make the situation even worse for my innocent opponent!!



Does that help????
__________________
"One Pocket, it's an epidemic and there ain't no cure."
-- Strawberry Brooks
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-04-2019, 09:35 PM
catkins's Avatar
catkins catkins is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: oakland california
Posts: 384
Default

I would honestly say that at least 40 % of the intentional I play are to maintain position around my hole and guarantee that i leave the cue ball hidden well to keep my opponent in trouble(to be honest I think it is much higher than 40 but I am not positive).


On another note I think if we want to go back and discuss darmoose rule it would be better to bounce the thread from the past as it had a lot of good comments before it was closed and probably keep this thread on track to address the issues that it was meant to be working on
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-04-2019, 09:53 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
darmoose, I keep feeling like when you reply you have re-written and misrepresented what I actually said. How about you actually quote the comment that I made that you wish to respond to instead of rewriting it to suit your point, when apparently what I actually said does not quite fit the dialogue you are intent on.

Let me try again. I think it is safe to say that somewhere about 90% of the time I take a scratch, I am trying to "reposition the cue ball" from where it is left by my opponent in a manner that is facing THEIR pocket, and instead I am trying to relocate the cue ball so it facing MY pocket, preferably behind balls so that I have turned the tables even though it might cost me a ball. The other 10% (OK maybe it is more than 10%) I am probably rolling to what looks like a safe small area at the far end of the table.

The other thing I am saying is that there is positively no guarantee that "passing back" either of those situations is going to help my innocent opponent. (PS I like the sound of that -- my "innocent opponent" lol). ESPECIALLY if I have been successful in reversing the direction of the cue ball to the object balls toward MY POCKET, when I had earlier come to the table with the cue ball facing MY OPPONENT's pocket. If indeed I did succeed in turning around the way the cue ball is facing the object balls and now they are facing MY POCKET, then I am going to say most of the time (maybe not all), HELL YEAH pass it back and let me make the situation even worse for my innocent opponent!!



Does that help????

Actually, not so much. But I'll quote you (see above) if that will help you understand.

You are claiming that 90% of the time you take an intentional you are not doing it because you are in a trap, but rather you are just opting to give up a ball to try to gain some positional advantage. I would prefer to discourage you from taking an intentional as opposed to executing a legal shot even if you attain the same positional advantage, mostly because it is more likely to carry greater risk for you and requires more skill, not to mention it moves the game along rather than going backwards. Also, I wish to discourage the more common intentional when one player simply touches the CB because he IS in a trap where he calculates that his best option is to try to force me to take two fouls along with him to basically delay and prolong the game, thereby reducing the effect of my trap. Most players seem to think the game is too long or too slow already.

I can't stop you from taking an intentional, but giving myself the "option" will no doubt have a detrimental effect on your strategy some percentage of the time, and may discourage you from intentionals in the future. And then there's the times you just flat out get lucky, and foul, but freeze me to a ball. There is no reason I should be penalized after you foul intentionally or accidentally. The option helps to mitigate that.

Of course I could be you and you could be me, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and all that.

Now, for your accusation of my rewriting your words to fit my narrative. Please point out where you saw me say that there was any "guarantee" of
anything.
__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.

Last edited by darmoose; 07-04-2019 at 10:02 PM. Reason: error
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-04-2019, 10:14 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
Actually, not so much. But I'll quote you (see above) if that will help you understand.

You are claiming that 90% of the time you take an intentional you are not doing it because you are in a trap, but rather you are just opting to give up a ball to try to gain some positional advantage. I would prefer to discourage you from taking an intentional as opposed to executing a legal shot even if you attain the same positional advantage, mostly because it is more likely to carry greater risk for you and requires more skill, not to mention it moves the game along rather than going backwards. Also, I wish to discourage the more common intentional when one player simply touches the CB because he IS in a trap where he calculates that his best option is to try to force me to take two fouls along with him to basically delay and prolong the game, thereby reducing the effect of my trap. Most players seem to think the game is too long or too slow already.

I can't stop you from taking an intentional, but giving myself the "option" will no doubt have a detrimental effect on your strategy some percentage of the time, and may discourage you from intentionals in the future. And then there's the times you just flat out get lucky, and foul, but freeze me to a ball. There is no reason I should be penalized after you foul intentionally or accidentally. The option helps to mitigate that.

Of course I could be you and you could be me, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and all that.

Now, for your accusation of my rewriting your words to fit my narrative. Please point out where you saw me say that there was any "guarantee" of
anything.
There you go again. No where did I say 90% of the time I was in a trap or not in a trap lol. Absolutely nowhere. But if I am taking a foul intentionally, (or risking not catching a rail, but hoping to get lucky and catch a rail) it is probably because I don't see a reliable route to turn the tables without taking a chance on an intentional. Balls are hard to come by for me, so I am not taking a scratch if I have a viable free route.

This is what I said that included the 90% comment:
Quote:
Let me try again. I think it is safe to say that somewhere about 90% of the time I take a scratch, I am trying to "reposition the cue ball" from where it is left by my opponent in a manner that is facing THEIR pocket, and instead I am trying to relocate the cue ball so it facing MY pocket, preferably behind balls so that I have turned the tables even though it might cost me a ball. The other 10% (OK maybe it is more than 10%) I am probably rolling to what looks like a safe small area at the far end of the table.
__________________
"One Pocket, it's an epidemic and there ain't no cure."
-- Strawberry Brooks
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-04-2019, 10:23 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
Actually, not so much. But I'll quote you (see above) if that will help you understand.

You are claiming that 90% of the time you take an intentional you are not doing it because you are in a trap, but rather you are just opting to give up a ball to try to gain some positional advantage. I would prefer to discourage you from taking an intentional as opposed to executing a legal shot even if you attain the same positional advantage, mostly because it is more likely to carry greater risk for you and requires more skill, not to mention it moves the game along rather than going backwards. Also, I wish to discourage the more common intentional when one player simply touches the CB because he IS in a trap where he calculates that his best option is to try to force me to take two fouls along with him to basically delay and prolong the game, thereby reducing the effect of my trap. Most players seem to think the game is too long or too slow already.

I can't stop you from taking an intentional, but giving myself the "option" will no doubt have a detrimental effect on your strategy some percentage of the time, and may discourage you from intentionals in the future. And then there's the times you just flat out get lucky, and foul, but freeze me to a ball. There is no reason I should be penalized after you foul intentionally or accidentally. The option helps to mitigate that.

Of course I could be you and you could be me, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and all that.

Now, for your accusation of my rewriting your words to fit my narrative. Please point out where you saw me say that there was any "guarantee" of
anything.
About the only place I see the option to pass back as a good option for the innocent player, is when the offending player fouls to land in a spot that traps both players -- such as on top of the stack or behind a ball up table, when there are open threat balls for both players. Sure, then I would probably pass back if I had the option. But if my opponent gets the cue ball on the side of the balls that favor them, which is probably most of the time if not 90% lol, no way am I passing back if they are facing their own pocket behind the balls on my side of the table.
__________________
"One Pocket, it's an epidemic and there ain't no cure."
-- Strawberry Brooks
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-04-2019, 10:53 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
About the only place I see the option to pass back as a good option for the innocent player, is when the offending player fouls to land in a spot that traps both players -- such as on top of the stack or behind a ball up table, when there are open threat balls for both players. Sure, then I would probably pass back if I had the option. But if my opponent gets the cue ball on the side of the balls that favor them, which is probably most of the time if not 90% lol, no way am I passing back if they are facing their own pocket behind the balls on my side of the table.
Every decision made depends entirely on the exact position of all the balls as well as the CB. It is impossible to speculate when you could invoke the option and when you couldn't. A difference of an 1/8" can change everything.

But what remains is having the option to return the shot on a foul will some of the time keep the innocent player from being penalized inadvertently, as in the case being discussed earlier by you and Whitey, without creating another BIH situation which in my mind is overkill.
__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-06-2019, 11:59 PM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,119
Default

Here are suggestive writings that may offer up some ideas:

6.3 Following either a pocket scratch foul or the cue ball jumping off the table foul, the incoming player receives ball in hand behind the line. To interfere with the cue ball while it is in motion is a foul, resulting in either; the incoming player accepting the table as is, or accepting the table as is with ball in hand behind the line. Following any other 'standard foul' for example; a double hit, or a push shot foul that does not violate rule 6.6, or is not an unsportsmanlike foul, the cue ball is played where it lies.

Next within 6.6; the rewriting of the sentence starting with 'However'.

6.6 However, Trapping or Wedging the Cue Ball by use of an illegal cue ball contact, or illegally stroking the cue ball by a double hit, push shot, or a push stroke; in the jaw of a pocket, in a cluster of balls, in the stack, to freeze into a rail, or otherwise to 'illegally misdirect' the cue ball to a more desirable location 'benefitting the offending player', will be considered an unsportsmanlike act foul whether intentional or not. In addition to the one ball penalty, the incoming opponent has the option of accepting the table as is, have the balls restored if possible, or to receive ball in hand. If the unsportsmanlike act is considered grievous then further discipline may be applied by the acting official.
-----------------
Catkins; I relate to your suggestions and their intent, so I added in more clarification in 6.3.
Yes, if you leave your stick out and the cue ball hits it, it invokes rule 6.3. I also simplified the sentence as LS John suggested.

Does this 6.3 writing add the needed clarity in distinguishing between interfering with the cue ball in motion vs. a standard double hit?

As we see in 6.6 when the double hit 'illegally misdirects & 'benefits the offending player' we then have rule 6.6 invoked.

The 'illegally misdirects & benefits the offending player' is Steve's suggestive word usage. I like it!
thanks for the responses! Whitey
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-07-2019, 01:22 AM
LSJohn LSJohn is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: monett missouri
Posts: 7,403
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darmoose View Post

But what remains is having the option to return the shot on a foul will some of the time keep the innocent player from being penalized inadvertently
Certainly so. However -- you and I rarely disagree on this kind of stuff -- I like the idea that a player who wisely chooses when to take an intentional, how to take it, and executes it well, gains an advantage over players deficient in any of those. It's a part of the game I'd rather keep than lose, despite some bad-roll disadvantages and often reducing the value of cleverly laid traps. (It also reduces the effect of an occasional pure-luck bad-roll leave on a good hit, and that's a good thing if taking out as much of the luck factor as we can is an objective.)
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-07-2019, 08:01 AM
darmoose darmoose is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis "Whitey" Young View Post
Here are suggestive writings that may offer up some ideas:

6.3 Following either a pocket scratch foul or the cue ball jumping off the table foul, the incoming player receives ball in hand behind the line. To interfere with the cue ball while it is in motion is a foul, resulting in either; the incoming player accepting the table as is, or accepting the table as is with ball in hand behind the line. Following any other 'standard foul' for example; a double hit, or a push shot foul that does not violate rule 6.6, or is not an unsportsmanlike foul, the cue ball is played where it lies.

Next within 6.6; the rewriting of the sentence starting with 'However'.

6.6 However, Trapping or Wedging the Cue Ball by use of an illegal cue ball contact, or illegally stroking the cue ball by a double hit, push shot, or a push stroke; in the jaw of a pocket, in a cluster of balls, in the stack, to freeze into a rail, or otherwise to 'illegally misdirect' the cue ball to a more desirable location 'benefitting the offending player', will be considered an unsportsmanlike act foul whether intentional or not. In addition to the one ball penalty, the incoming opponent has the option of accepting the table as is, have the balls restored if possible, or to receive ball in hand. If the unsportsmanlike act is considered grievous then further discipline may be applied by the acting official.
-----------------
Catkins; I relate to your suggestions and their intent, so I added in more clarification in 6.3.
Yes, if you leave your stick out and the cue ball hits it, it invokes rule 6.3. I also simplified the sentence as LS John suggested.

Does this 6.3 writing add the needed clarity in distinguishing between interfering with the cue ball in motion vs. a standard double hit?

As we see in 6.6 when the double hit 'illegally misdirects & 'benefits the offending player' we then have rule 6.6 invoked.

The 'illegally misdirects & benefits the offending player' is Steve's suggestive word usage. I like it!
thanks for the responses! Whitey
I'm sorry guys, but this is crazy. You are now gonna ask players and referees to distinguish between impeding a CB and double hits. You are gonna try to distinguish certain "unsportsmanlike" behaviors from other "unsportsmanlike" behaviors and apply different penalties. REALLY??

The first principal of rule making is to minimize or eliminate ambiguity, exceptions, choices. Rules, if at all possible should be written as if they would be adopted to ALL play, not just to be applicable when playing in a tournament with a referee standing watch over every match.

Can you imagine the potential arguments between players gambling even semi serious money over the application of these changes. I think you need to rethink this.

At the risk of being redundant, if you are concerned about deficiencies in our current rules, and wish to make improvements in a very simple and straightforward way to keep players from taking advantage of the current rules, I have a suggestion.

The problem is not determining if a foul has been committed, but rather what to do about it. If the answer to this question is always the same, you have arrived at utopia.

After all fouls the incoming player can either accept the table as is, or can return the table to the offending player.
__________________
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 10:48 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.