NH Steve
Administrator
My suggestion was actually that the rules be simplified given it is essentially a "Ghost" game first and foremost, that is sometimes utilized in a gambling setting and sometimes utilized in a multiplayer challenge "tournament". In that regard I do not see the need to nitpick things like whether the cue ball is wholly behind the line or the base of the ball is behind the line within the "rules" -- leave the nitpicking to others lol.
The more little rules you put in this, the more technicalities you offer to a side bettor to bring up if the slightest thing that happens during the shooters 5 racks with money involved, if you ask me. The less rules the better. Let the shooter shoot and tally up the balls to determine a win or not — otherwise you’ll get sudden timely claims in the 5th rack — “you fouled, game over”.
I also see no need to consider a scratch or foul on the break as nullifying that rack attempt. The whole point of the "game" is to see how many balls you can run per rack; why would you want to cut off an entire rack before it even begins? If you don't want to give BIH on a breaking scratch, then make the player re-break, with a penalty of -1 applied. Likewise if you don't contact the rack at all -- so what? Just do a re-break and if you want, penalize -1. Again, the point is simply to see how many balls you can cumulatively run in 5 racks.
Where did the idea of a scratch on the break nullifying the entire rack come from? My own experience is limited to the last dozen years or so (since I was involved every year they had this challenge at DCC). But it does in some form date back to Johnston City according to what I have heard from older players. I never heard of a scratch on the break nullifying the rack.
The more little rules you put in this, the more technicalities you offer to a side bettor to bring up if the slightest thing that happens during the shooters 5 racks with money involved, if you ask me. The less rules the better. Let the shooter shoot and tally up the balls to determine a win or not — otherwise you’ll get sudden timely claims in the 5th rack — “you fouled, game over”.
I also see no need to consider a scratch or foul on the break as nullifying that rack attempt. The whole point of the "game" is to see how many balls you can run per rack; why would you want to cut off an entire rack before it even begins? If you don't want to give BIH on a breaking scratch, then make the player re-break, with a penalty of -1 applied. Likewise if you don't contact the rack at all -- so what? Just do a re-break and if you want, penalize -1. Again, the point is simply to see how many balls you can cumulatively run in 5 racks.
Where did the idea of a scratch on the break nullifying the entire rack come from? My own experience is limited to the last dozen years or so (since I was involved every year they had this challenge at DCC). But it does in some form date back to Johnston City according to what I have heard from older players. I never heard of a scratch on the break nullifying the rack.
