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
  #11  
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
  #12  
Old 03-23-2019, 11:43 AM
gulfportdoc's Avatar
gulfportdoc gulfportdoc is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Gulfport, Mississippi
Posts: 8,991
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
  #13  
Old 03-23-2019, 01:01 PM
darmoose darmoose is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Chapo View Post
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.

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 be more understandable to non one pocket players if rules were changed for the better in my opinion.
The thing about making rules is that when you attempt to force a certain action, judge intent, or stop anything, you are inviting complexity and failure. I know you don't like jumping the CB off the table off the table, or deliberately scratching at the end of a game when the only ball left is hanging in a hole, but you can't stop that. You can only apply an appropriate penalty, and whatever penalty you assign also applies at all other times. That is what makes for a good rule, no exceptions. If you must have an exception, make sure there's a good reason.

We can no more stop a player from taking an intentional than deliberately scratching or jumping a ball off the table. We could make a "two foul loss of game" rule, that would help, but likely not be acceptable, or we could give the incoming player the "option" of whether to shoot or return the shot after any foul, which would put an end to the "tapping" altogether.

I would rather not complicate or confuse this very obvious problem and simple solution.

I am very open to anybody willing to take ,their head out of the sand to explain what allowing 4 intentionals under the 3 foul rule adds to the game. With all the experience on this forum, if the current rule has any merit, it should be easy to tell us what it is.

One Pocket has been great for all these years, in spite of this problem, not because of it.


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

Last edited by darmoose; 03-23-2019 at 07:36 PM. Reason: error
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-23-2019, 01:05 PM
darmoose darmoose is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gulfportdoc View Post
"Roll-out" one pocket. Ya gotta love it!!..

~Doc
Good one Doc. You got to be of a certain "vintage" to understand how great the "roll-out" part of nineball was back in the day, huh?
__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-23-2019, 01:49 PM
jerry matchin jerry matchin is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,248
Default

Actually because the flyer didn't stipulate the three foul rule doesn't mean that the TD can't impose it once play began. He could have let that game continue on and then starting the next game impose the rule. I don't think anyone would have complained.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-23-2019, 02:06 PM
Jimmy B's Avatar
Jimmy B Jimmy B is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,709
Default

All games have certain rules you can take advantage of that don't seem exactly like it's in the normal spirit of the game.. Take football, for example.. Say it's near the end of the game.. The good news is you have a six point lead. The other good news is there are only 33 seconds left in the game.. The bad news is you had a penalty and then you got dropped for a loss and it's now fourth and 22 at your own one foot line.. Do you go for a first down?? Not hardly.. Too low percentage.. Do you punt the ball from the very back of the end zone?? No way.. The right call is to snap to the punter, let him burn off as many seconds as he can and then step out of the back of the end zone for an intentional safety.. You're still field goal proof with a four point lead and you get a nice free kick from the twenty....You don't have to start making a bunch of rule changes.. That's where you fkkk up.. Now who wants to have 25 on the Supreme Court??? And Fkk mule face Muler and his report, too...
__________________
"Born Into This"
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-24-2019, 12:52 AM
blindlemon blindlemon is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 58
Default

[QUOTE=darmoose;254527][B]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 be mandated to play out of the trap without being able

Well I thought that was a thoughtful response I agree with some of it and I disagree with some. I can play with it or without it doesn't make a lot of difference to me. As for these great players it isn't used that much with them. hell they make it look like an 8-point game straight pool. As to watching and playing I watch I play. I guess I'm kind of a traditionalist I don't like to see the game change. you and I will never convince each other. and I type too slow to argue with anyone anyways thanks for the response take care my friend
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-24-2019, 01:41 AM
youngstownkid's Avatar
youngstownkid youngstownkid is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,337
Default alex and chip no 3 foul rule

Quote:
Originally Posted by gulfportdoc View Post
"Roll-out" one pocket. Ya gotta love it!!..

~Doc


I would love to see a roll out 9 ball match between two top players. One former top player friend of mine speaks very passionately about that style and said it was the only way hed bet significantly.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-24-2019, 03:57 AM
El Chapo El Chapo is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy B View Post
All games have certain rules you can take advantage of that don't seem exactly like it's in the normal spirit of the game.. Take football, for example.. Say it's near the end of the game.. The good news is you have a six point lead. The other good news is there are only 33 seconds left in the game.. The bad news is you had a penalty and then you got dropped for a loss and it's now fourth and 22 at your own one foot line.. Do you go for a first down?? Not hardly.. Too low percentage.. Do you punt the ball from the very back of the end zone?? No way.. The right call is to snap to the punter, let him burn off as many seconds as he can and then step out of the back of the end zone for an intentional safety.. You're still field goal proof with a four point lead and you get a nice free kick from the twenty....You don't have to start making a bunch of rule changes.. That's where you fkkk up.. Now who wants to have 25 on the Supreme Court??? And Fkk mule face Muler and his report, too...
I do not watch much football. But here is my take... you are talking about a guy winding time off the clock by stepping behind the pocket and scrambling as long as he can. And, his defensive line has to execute well. That is not analogous to a purposeful scratch at all. To me, what you brought up would be analogous to a perfectly legit shot in one pocket... say a safety shot when you are up 7-0 and trying to push balls uptable... you have got to execute and it is a tactical move.

If you want to use your football analogy, you have got to think of the worst thing imagineable a team can do! Because that is what scratching is on a pool table. So, if purposefully throwing an interception in football (ie completely losing control in the worst possible way) somehow gave that team an advantage, I would say that is a bad rule.

On a football field we have the best athletes in the world. Sure they are going to try and tactically run time off the clock when they are leading. But their rules never give an advantage to a team who 100% lost control of the football in the worst way possible on the field. Everyone wants the rules to force players into using their exceptional physical skills as much as possible.

That is what i think good rule changes would do in one pocket. Traps would mean a lot more, and players in traps may be forced into doing much more exciting things like attempting to pocket a ball against all odds, or else they will clearly lose. As it stands we watch a player with enormous offensive ability bunt the ball, or scratch behind a hanger. It is a joke. I challenge anyone to come up with another sport where a screw up like this is rewarded.

Honestly, with all due respect to everyone, I think we all see what we want to see. Including myself. One pocket is perfectly acceptable the way it is, I think the best player is going to win regardless, but I personally see much room for improvement.

Don't trust me, the proof is in the pudding. How many full blown life pool players can you guys think of who do not even have one pocket on their radar?! Never played a game of it? Doesn't that speak volumes? The game does not even register with many people who play pool for a living! So imagine more casual observers of pool, and how little sense watching two world class players bunt four shots in a row makes to them. If we ever want to grow the popularity of the sport, even to include actual pool players, I would say some rules changes would be in order myself. If you would like the game to remain esoteric and right where it is, sure I can see the position of status quo being a valid one.

Last edited by El Chapo; 03-24-2019 at 04:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-24-2019, 04:26 AM
El Chapo El Chapo is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darmoose View Post
The thing about making rules is that when you attempt to force a certain action, judge intent, or stop anything, you are inviting complexity and failure. I know you don't like jumping the CB off the table off the table, or deliberately scratching at the end of a game when the only ball left is hanging in a hole, but you can't stop that. You can only apply an appropriate penalty, and whatever penalty you assign also applies at all other times. That is what makes for a good rule, no exceptions. If you must have an exception, make sure there's a good reason.

We can no more stop a player from taking an intentional than deliberately scratching or jumping a ball off the table. We could make a "two foul loss of game" rule, that would help, but likely not be acceptable, or we could give the incoming player the "option" of whether to shoot or return the shot after any foul, which would put an end to the "tapping" altogether.

I would rather not complicate or confuse this very obvious problem and simple solution.

I am very open to anybody willing to take ,their head out of the sand to explain what allowing 4 intentionals under the 3 foul rule adds to the game. With all the experience on this forum, if the current rule has any merit, it should be easy to tell us what it is.

One Pocket has been great for all these years, in spite of this problem, not because of it.


You guys can call me out on this, I am sure you will, but truth is I have not put a lot of thought into the actual rule changes I feel would be effective. I may if I thought they would be objectively analyzed and experimented with.

Keeping that in mind, whatever i came up with I do not believe would complicate anything. In fact, I would make sure games ended sooner, with less backwards movement, all with perfect clarity on who the winner is and should be... ie the guy who controlled the balls better.

We all know people get too emotional about things they are close to. So, in my opinion, talking about rule changes with 40 year one pocket players is like discussing a murder with the victim's husband. That conversation could be fruitful, but it is probably going to be quite clouded. How do you solve that? I do not know. But the real problem is quite clear to me, people want to continue seeing things the way they have seen them for those past 40 years, whether those things made sense or not be damned.

I have already stated ways I think you can come to conclusions objectively though. Please, someone, come up with another aport where the worst possible blunder/turnover results in an advantage. If you can't, i think that objectively soeaking you would be forced to surmise there is a problem with the rules in one pocket.

I personally go through the worst blunders in sports and cant think of any...

golf... if you drive it over the adjecent fairway and over the freeway, you get screwed, so nobody does that.

baseball... an outfileder throws a ball not to homeplate as a guy is trying to score, but into the bleachers.

swimming... a guy swims so slow he never leaves the starting gate

archery ... lauches the arrow and misses target and hits a spectator in the eye

this could go on all day. prove me wrong! please. what sport exists, where the worst possible physical execution you can perform is potentially an advantage?!
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 03:34 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.