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
  #71  
Old 01-13-2019, 09:24 AM
NH Steve's Avatar
NH Steve NH Steve is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 8,185
Default

"Pass it back option on fouls" -- PIBOOF lol --could be a very interesting negotiating option too if as a player you learned how to use it. If I was going to play a strong player getting serious weight for example, I would like to hold out for that option -- for me only of course in this case scenario

But no matter how much any of us might like this or any other new rule idea, it doesn't mean we would change the official rules any time soon at all. But once an idea has been tried and gets a track record I can see adding it as an option in the rules. A long standing traditional game like One Pocket is simply not going to see major rule changes unless they come from a major ground swell in how players in the real world prefer to play the game. Onepocket.org can lead by promulgating new ideas but I'm not going to support trying to force a change by simply changing our rules. Honestly I think that would make our rules less relevant.

As I look at it, our rules have played a huge role in clarifying how One Pocket is played. Prior to our rules there was really only the over-simplified rules in the BCA, that didn't even always agree with how the game was played -- ever. It is true that now, other rules like the USAPL have appeared -- but they are obviously based on our rules -- not BCA, so I give us a pat on the back on those too.

Ours are due for clean up, as well as adding the "rerack on ball made on a break" as an option. That because so many people are using it. It needs to address the "what if" you scratch on the break when you make a ball too, because that question seems to constantly come up.

I like the PIBOOF rule right away, for situations where a player has used an illegal stroke to park the cue ball (such as squeezing the cue ball against the pocket facing or cushion, or a ferule touch for examples). Our rules already state this:

Quote:
6.6 Intentional fouls are an accepted part of One Pocket tactics as long as they are played by use of a legal stroke, such as by lightly touching the cue ball with the cue tip; by rolling the cue ball to a new location without regard for legal contact with either an object ball or a cushion; by pocket scratching the cue ball; or by using a legal jump technique to force the cue ball off the table. However, if the acting official rules that a player has used an illegal technique to direct the cue ball or any object balls to a more desirable location, then the incoming player has the option of either playing the balls where they lie, or requesting the official to restore all such moved balls to their location prior to the illegal maneuver. The offending player is charged the standard one ball foul penalty, and in addition may be further penalized at the discretion of the acting official under the general rules of unsportsmanlike conduct.
__________________
"One Pocket, it's an epidemic and there ain't no cure."
-- Strawberry Brooks
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-13-2019, 09:36 AM
lll lll is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: vero beach fl
Posts: 14,286
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NH Steve View Post

But no matter how much any of us might like this or any other new rule idea, it doesn't mean we would change the official rules any time soon at all.
But once an idea has been tried and gets a track record I can see adding it as an option in the rules.
A long standing traditional game like One Pocket is simply not going to see major rule changes unless they come from a major ground swell in how players in the real world prefer to play the game.
Onepocket.org can lead by promulgating new ideas but I'm not going to support trying to force a change by simply changing our rules. Honestly I think that would make our rules less relevant.
a voice of reason
tap..tap
great post steve.....
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 01-13-2019, 10:16 AM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,004
Default

As I see it, an 'Option After the Foul' rule would not have much of an effect when playing a long rail kick off the head rail and going to reposition the cb in behind your opponent's balls by their pocket.This play is never going to be passed back, for you are in position to shoot towards your hole! So absolutely no effect whatsoever.

But, doing a soft kick into the stack with no intentions to drive a ball to a rail, or after your opponent leaves you legally against the stack, and you 'tap out an intentional' then this rule does come into effect.

I think, El Chapo, has always stated it best; "you take these top pro's with unimaginable talent and the best shot they can come up with is to tap the cb, tap, tap, tap, that's it"! Of course he is talking about taking a stack play intentional.

So, anything that eliminates this type of an intentional, I am a fan of, which I have express many times and have offered up an alternative rule to help thwart this practice. It is not as good as Darmoose rule! But, only allow one intentional by a player, by making a second consecutive intentional by that same player result in BIH for their opponent.

I had two thoughts in offering up this suggestive alt. rule; 1. to keep the game from going backwards with excessive intentionals. 2. to punish the first player to do an intentional, by either making them shoot on their next shot or giving up BIH. Whitey

Last edited by Dennis "Whitey" Young; 01-13-2019 at 10:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-13-2019, 10:38 AM
NH Steve's Avatar
NH Steve NH Steve is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 8,185
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis "Whitey" Young View Post
As I see it, an 'Option After the Foul' rule would not have much of an effect when playing a long rail kick off the head rail and going to reposition the cb in behind your opponent's balls by their pocket.This play is never going to be passed back, for you are in position to shoot towards your hole! So absolutely no effect whatsoever.

But, doing a soft kick into the stack with no intentions to drive a ball to a rail, or after your opponent leaves you legally against the stack, and you 'tap out an intentional' then this rule does come into effect.

I think, El Chapo, has always stated it best; "you take these top pro's with unimaginable talent and the best shot they can come up with is to tap the cb, tap, tap, tap, that's it"! Of course he is talking about taking a stack play intentional.

So, anything that eliminates this type of an intentional, I am a fan of, which I have express many times and have offered up an alternative rule to help thwart this practice. It is not as good as Darmoose rule! But, only allow one intentional by a player, by making a second consecutive intentional by that same player result in BIH for their opponent.

I had two thoughts in offering up this suggestive alt. rule; 1. to keep the game from going backwards with excessive intentionals. 2. to punish the first player to do an intentional, by either making them shoot on their next shot or giving up BIH. Whitey
I believe it would come into play any time a player uses an intentional to put the cue ball in such a way that either player is "trapped" -- and that is quite often. For examples
  • the top of the stack, when balls are open to both pockets
  • actually behind a ball/balls anywhere on the table when balls are open to both pockets
  • corner-hooked

One thing NOT to like about the threat of the PIBOOF rule, is when your opponent accidentally traps you like the this (the usual case with a corner hook). Now you -- an innocent victim -- are pretty much forced to get out of the trap with a legal shot -- or an intentional foul to the best you can do in a tough situation, without even being able to force the lucky shmuck that did this to you to at least back scratch once or twice also.

Example -- I saw about 10 years ago Raphael Martinez get victimized by a lucky corner hook when there was a ball about 6" out from his opponent's pocket. Raphael knew immediately what to do, which was to take a scratch right there and spot one of his balls. Then of course his opponent took a scratch and potted one of their balls. Now with two balls already on the spot Raphael went ahead and kicked at the single ball that was near his oppnent's pocket. He got a good hit and thus survived in that game. However, if he had been forced to kick right away, with either no ball on the spot, or only one ball on the spot, he probably would have lost that game! All because his opponent got lucky and did not quite scratch!!
__________________
"One Pocket, it's an epidemic and there ain't no cure."
-- Strawberry Brooks
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 01-13-2019, 11:28 AM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,004
Default

Since this thread has drifted at times towards talking about the OP game rules as a whole, and the addition of alternative rules. And to pigging back off of Steve's comments in post # 71.

I see 3 areas where OP rules can improve. 1. and most important: Player Procedure. 2. General Rules (WPA) not adequate. 3. OP.org IMO should develop their own General Rules that are geared specifically for OP, and not rely on anyone else's rules that they can not control, which could and does adversely effect our game of OP.

Proper Procedure: Who spots the ball/ the opponent for the shooter always. Who marks and removes the coins/ the player who's score it effects, always. Who takes the balls out/puts in balls in their collective are/ the player who's balls it effects, always. When can a player take a break from play/ on their inning. When can a player approach the table? When the player is down on the shot, and is interrupted by the opponent / what then? Spotting a scored ball instead of properly spotting the pocketed neutral ball/improper. When does an inning start for a player/ different than other games for it would not start until scored/owed balls and coins are finalized, and this effects the 3 foul notification rule. Just things like this!
The lack of specifically pointing out player's proper procedure really takes away from the game, and really holds it down from achieving excellence.

General Rules: OP is different than any other game, in that highly technical billiard scenarios are always occurring. With a lot of close proximity shots, frozen ball scenarios ( Paul Newman's Hustler Shot for example), double hits/push scenarios, wedging / and trapping scenarios. It is the most advance highly technical game in pool that the occurrences of these technical scenarios is frequent.
And todays WPA and CSI gen. rules are just not technically advanced in enough in many of these areas.

With developing our own highly advanced technical General Rules geared to match the persona of OP, then it will raise the standard of excellence OP so highly deserves and awaits!

IMO, WPA will soon adopt OP and write a one pocket game rule, the reason is because OP is becoming increasingly popular in Europe. And WPA will want to be involved. And for some reason WPA is viewed as the holy grail, I do not by into this. Whitey

Last edited by Dennis "Whitey" Young; 01-13-2019 at 12:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 01-13-2019, 12:31 PM
catkins's Avatar
catkins catkins is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: oakland california
Posts: 335
Default

When talking about rules in general one of the most important thing in my eyes is simplicity and clarity. when action occurs this is the result. too many rules in pool end up creating arguments as opposed to settling them. I do like this specific rule more than any of the others as it is completely clear and solves an issue I think that does need to be addressed in this game.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 01-13-2019, 01:14 PM
darmoose darmoose is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,244
Default

Larry, Steve, Whitey

I don't wanna beat a dead horse, like we haven't been doing that for days now. Everybody makes good points about all this at times.

Certainly Steve's points are valid, as are Larry's (he thinks I want to change the rule today and have everyone playing my rule tomorrow). Of course this is a process and it takes time and indeed a trial to make any progress. For now this is just a discussion and something to think about.

Whitey's most recent comment below causes me to think of something. It's obvious that I am aiming at eliminating the strategy whereby a player uses intentional fouls to get out of a trap, change the score, etc., as I have said numerous times. I conceived the PIBOOF (thanks Steve) to solve this problem without having to call out intentionals, and without having exceptions to the rule.

However Whitey said something that I need to address. The three foul= loss of game rule is all that limits the number of intentionals today.

If two fouls in a row=loss of game, or if two fouls in a row=BIH behind the line, that would limit intentionals to one, which would be an improvement.

We have an MOT coming up in Philly at which I will play anyone by any of these rules. We could even have a challenge table dedicated to trying alternative rules. If we got several volunteers, there could be two or three tables doing this, and we all could see the results first hand. Just a thought.
__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 01-13-2019, 01:36 PM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,004
Default

Darmoose,
To be clear, I never stated two 'fouls' in a row by a player would be a 'loss of game', nor BIH. But, two intentionals I suggested could be BIH. Whitey
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 01-13-2019, 01:45 PM
catkins's Avatar
catkins catkins is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: oakland california
Posts: 335
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis "Whitey" Young View Post
Darmoose,
To be clear, I never stated two 'fouls' in a row by a player would be a 'loss of game', nor BIH. But, two intentionals I suggested could be BIH. Whitey
This with out doubt would lead to arguments as to weather a foul was intentional or not
imo
chris
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 01-13-2019, 02:07 PM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by catkins View Post
This with out doubt would lead to arguments as to weather a foul was intentional or not
imo
chris
I agree, and that was the discussion last time, what is an intentional. So therefore it would be clearer, if on any two consecutive fouls by the same player it would then result in BIH. Catkins, thanks for pointing this out! Whitey
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 06:40 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.