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 03-22-2019, 01:07 PM
sneakynito's Avatar
sneakynito sneakynito is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 377
Default alex and chip no 3 foul rule

Anyone catch this little episode with Chip and Alex in the Scotty Townsend?

I forgot to grab a screenshot but one of the guys stuck the cue ball right at the head of the rack, frozen to a pretty good cluster of balls. Balls were lying dangerously so they did the little barely touch take a foul. After 2 I believe Alex let Chip know he was on two and he was informed there was no 3 foul rule this tourney. Apparently they forgot to add it to the flyer and didn't want to change the rules after the fact.

Alex was pretty vocal about it and it had me laughing pretty good. "how is this ever going to end" "we need more coins. get me a roll of coins".
Was pretty funny watching them both stand over the cue ball and just tap it with their stick back and forth. Can you imagine watching it if you didn't know what one pocket was?

Chip finally shot away and played a pretty decent shot but it was after they were both at -5 or -6.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-22-2019, 01:42 PM
lll lll is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: vero beach fl
Posts: 14,338
Default

i did see it and was wondering if darmoose was watching????
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-22-2019, 03:35 PM
darmoose darmoose is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lll View Post
i did see it and was wondering if darmoose was watching????
Ha ha Larry, I wasn't watching, but if I had been I would'a been appalled that this ridiculousness is part of the beautiful game of OP. The two foul rule keeps it somewhat in check, and from getting out of hand for the most part, but still allows a player to change the game, which to me is just wrong and serves no other logical purpose, and should be removed from the game.

Why do we put up with something like this? It gives our game a bad name, and rightfully so.

Imagine if these two guys were playing that after every foul (of any kind) the incoming player had the option to take the shot or give it back to the fouler. How much better would that be?


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

Last edited by darmoose; 03-22-2019 at 03:37 PM. Reason: error
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-22-2019, 07:58 PM
lll lll is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: vero beach fl
Posts: 14,338
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darmoose View Post
Ha ha Larry, I wasn't watching, but if I had been I would'a been appalled that this ridiculousness is part of the beautiful game of OP. The two foul rule keeps it somewhat in check, and from getting out of hand for the most part, but still allows a player to change the game, which to me is just wrong and serves no other logical purpose, and should be removed from the game.

Why do we put up with something like this? It gives our game a bad name, and rightfully so.

Imagine if these two guys were playing that after every foul (of any kind) the incoming player had the option to take the shot or give it back to the fouler. How much better would that be?


darrell
we have been thru this before
we agree to disagree
i dont want to re hash an old discussion ( i was going to say argument but i wouldnt press send,,, )
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-22-2019, 10:50 PM
El Chapo El Chapo is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darmoose View Post
Ha ha Larry, I wasn't watching, but if I had been I would'a been appalled that this ridiculousness is part of the beautiful game of OP. The two foul rule keeps it somewhat in check, and from getting out of hand for the most part, but still allows a player to change the game, which to me is just wrong and serves no other logical purpose, and should be removed from the game.

Why do we put up with something like this? It gives our game a bad name, and rightfully so.

Imagine if these two guys were playing that after every foul (of any kind) the incoming player had the option to take the shot or give it back to the fouler. How much better would that be?


Totally agree. It is very much beneath such a beautiful game to have two world class players touching a cue ball time and time again.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-23-2019, 02:59 AM
blindlemon blindlemon is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 58
Default

I don't know I don't find it hard to watch. The three foul rule was put in place to speed up tournament play. Intentional scratches are used to see who will be the first to make a mistake. I think the people that want to change the game don't understand that part of the game or don't have enough patience for it. Game has been great 4 many years, I hope we leave the rules alone. Tournaments are different because of the time restraint but everything else should be left alone
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-23-2019, 06:00 AM
lll lll is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: vero beach fl
Posts: 14,338
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blindlemon View Post
I don't know I don't find it hard to watch. The three foul rule was put in place to speed up tournament play. Intentional scratches are used to see who will be the first to make a mistake. I think the people that want to change the game don't understand that part of the game or don't have enough patience for it. Game has been great 4 many years, I hope we leave the rules alone. Tournaments are different because of the time restraint but everything else should be left alone
you should post more often.......
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-23-2019, 09:30 AM
darmoose darmoose is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blindlemon View Post
I don't know I don't find it hard to watch. The three foul rule was put in place to speed up tournament play.
There is watching , and there is playing. Watching involves no consequences, while playing with intentional fouls has significant consequences. If the three foul rule was created to speed up the game, it only follows that we could speed up the game today by going to a one foul rule, or disincentivizing intentionals through this rule change. In an environment where everybody feels free to criticize slow play and slow players, and there exists very little that can realistically be done about that, one would think that minimizing intentional fouls would be "low hanging fruit".

Quote:
Intentional scratches are used to see who will be the first to make a mistake. I think the people that want to change the game don't understand that part of the game or don't have enough patience for it.
Taking an intentional when you are trapped in no way allows you to avoid making a mistake because you opponent can force you to eventually "take the shot". There is no strategy involved, other than to change the game and score favoring the better player. The one pocket strategic shot that should be applauded is the initial shot that put you into the trap, and the mistake you refer to had already been made by you to allow that to happen. In deference to the respect for the nuances of this game, you should be mandated to play out of the trap without being able to "dilute" the consequences.


Quote:
Game has been great 4 many years, I hope we leave the rules alone. Tournaments are different because of the time restraint but everything else should be left alone
Yes, of course the game has been great for many years. That is no valid defense against making limited changes for good reason. You seem to be saying that for tournaments you would consider a change. I would agree, but add that rules about "playing the game" like this one tend to eventually apply to other venues, and they should, for consistency sake.

I understand that there are "insistent traditionalists" that can accept NO changes whatsoever, they react without consideration, while minimizing the problem being addressed hoping to simply just blow it away. Someone who wants to seriously defend intentional fouls please explain just what touching the CB four times in a row adds to the game.

While I would like to see this practice stopped, I wouldn't ban intentional fouls. You may shoot as you please, so long as you understand that your opponent can make you shoot again if you fouled. How simple is that?.

To evaluate the effect of this change look at the primary fouls that can occur. You scratch, opponent gets CBIH, you are not likely to get to shoot again. You fail to hit a rail or commit some other touch/shooting foul, you may or may not get to shoot again depending on whether your foul put your opponent in jeopardy, which ought to be your opponents prerogative. Lastly, you lag behind balls giving no shot to you opponent, you won't get to shoot again if there is a shot to your hole.

Ultimately, the effect on the game from this rule change is minimal, except to eliminate this "tapping the CB" silliness.
__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.

Last edited by darmoose; 03-23-2019 at 11:47 AM. Reason: error
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-23-2019, 10:42 AM
El Chapo El Chapo is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blindlemon View Post
I don't know I don't find it hard to watch. The three foul rule was put in place to speed up tournament play. Intentional scratches are used to see who will be the first to make a mistake. I think the people that want to change the game don't understand that part of the game or don't have enough patience for it. Game has been great 4 many years, I hope we leave the rules alone. Tournaments are different because of the time restraint but everything else should be left alone
Serious question... do you think it would be kosher if in bowling the rules were such that players got up there and purposefully threw gutter balls to try and gain an advantage in a game?

That is what happens in one pocket. The best players in the world scratch into pockets on purpose, they do things like tapping the cb, and even launch the cb off the table purposefully.

The only conclusion you can reasonably come to in bowling if that was the case is the rules are bad. So, you would just need to change the rule so that a gutter ball was not advantage, which would not be a difficult thing to do in one pocket at all.

The completely insane part is, i believe we could make the rules so that the best players in the world are FORCED into offense in really tough spots much more often, which would be the absolute coolest thing to see i can think of as a one pocket fan and player. As it stands, we have the best ball strikers in the world stepping up to a cue ball and tapping it a half a millimeter to gain an advantage. The games could also go much faster, and more understanable to non one pocket players if rules were changed for the better in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-23-2019, 11:43 AM
gulfportdoc's Avatar
gulfportdoc gulfportdoc is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Gulfport, Mississippi
Posts: 8,984
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darmoose View Post
...

Imagine if these two guys were playing that after every foul (of any kind) the incoming player had the option to take the shot or give it back to the fouler. How much better would that be?
"Roll-out" one pocket. Ya gotta love it!!..

~Doc
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 02:16 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.