old vs new rules

[lll]

the only fair way if you change it, is if when you going to spot the balls the person shooting them in, should be charged one for each one he made. so if he runs 3, spot three and he owes three.

other wise you are making the person sitting down responsible for the person's shooting mistakes. plus it enables the offender after he realizes he shot one in to quickly shoot in other that are in front of the pocket so they get spotted.

years back we played the old rules and if you made balls for me tough luck for you. if i am eating a sandwich and you are shooting balls in my pocket and im not watching why punish me.

thats an interesting perspective
i like the logic of your last paragraph

 

[NH Steve]

darell
to me the rules above recommend playing a safety when there was no shot.
there is no mention of the rule for a legal safety. the rules above do not specifically say there was no requirement to hit a rail
the rules for a legal safety was in the official rules of pool for straight pool and all pool players knew that.
i beleive and this is conjecture the specifics of a legal break were spelled out because it differed from straight pool
icbw

That's exactly what I believe larry. And there is a subtle detail in there that the BCA rules for One Pocket overlooked when they ibelatedly added One Pocket to their rules (be it ever so incompletely lol). It is the simple word "or" -- as in either the cue ball or an object ball must be driven to a rail, not "and", which the BCA had or maybe still has.

 

[darmoose]

darell
to me the rules above recommend playing a safety when there was no shot.
there is no mention of the rule for a legal safety. the rules above do not specifically say there was no requirement to hit a rail
the rules for a legal safety was in the official rules of pool for straight pool and all pool players knew that.
i beleive and this is conjecture the specifics of a legal break were spelled out because it differed from straight pool
icbw

Hey, lar.....

I love your logic. It is always good to find some logical explanation for this kind of thing, if logic exists.......

However, your explanation necessarily raises a question. The rules outlined in numbers 1, 2, 9, and 10 are also covered in other popular and well known pool games like eight ball, nine ball, and straight pool, and yet the writer thought to repeat or cover the same rules for this game of OP. Rules 6 and 7 are unnecessary, as they are covered in the Object of the game section at the top.

So, logically speaking, the only rules needed from this list of 13 rules are 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, and 13. All the rest come from well known other pool games and do not need repeating given the explanation of the game at the top. Wouldn't you agree...I mean conjectively speaking and all....

P.S. (edit) Steve, you were typing as I was. What about what I just said in light of yur last comment?

 

[lll]

Hey, lar.....

I love your logic. It is always good to find some logical explanation for this kind of thing, if logic exists.......

However, your explanation necessarily raises a question. The rules outlined in numbers 1, 2, 9, and 10 are also covered in other popular and well known pool games like eight ball, nine ball, and straight pool, and yet the writer thought to repeat or cover the same rules for this game of OP. Rules 6 and 7 are unnecessary, as they are covered in the Object of the game section at the top.

So, logically speaking, the only rules needed from this list of 13 rules are 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, and 13. All the rest come from well known other pool games and do not need repeating given the explanation of the game at the top. Wouldn't you agree...I mean conjectively speaking and all....

P.S. (edit) Steve, you were typing as I was. What about what I just said in light of yur last comment?

write or call the author of the rules and tell him that....
regardless of your obsevations of what was or wasnt needed
do you agree with what i said?
"there is no mention of the rule for a legal safety. the rules above do not specifically say there was no requirement to hit a rail "
just askin

 

[NH Steve]

Hey, lar.....

I love your logic. It is always good to find some logical explanation for this kind of thing, if logic exists.......

However, your explanation necessarily raises a question. The rules outlined in numbers 1, 2, 9, and 10 are also covered in other popular and well known pool games like eight ball, nine ball, and straight pool, and yet the writer thought to repeat or cover the same rules for this game of OP. Rules 6 and 7 are unnecessary, as they are covered in the Object of the game section at the top.

So, logically speaking, the only rules needed from this list of 13 rules are 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, and 13. All the rest come from well known other pool games and do not need repeating given the explanation of the game at the top. Wouldn't you agree...I mean conjectively speaking and all....

P.S. (edit) Steve, you were typing as I was. What about what I just said in light of yur last comment?

I do not understand what you are asking me. What I do know is, these are basically the rules that the Jansco's assembled for their early One Pocket tournaments. There were no generally available One Pocket rules published prior to those Johnston City tournaments. When we originally created our own One Pocket rules here in 2005, those early rules were taken into consideration with respect For one thing, they had the break requirements right -- either the cue ball or an object ball had to hit a rail on the break, not both.

 

[lll]

write or call the author of the rules and tell him that....
regardless of your obsevations of what was or wasnt needed
do you agree with what i said?
"there is no mention of the rule for a legal safety. the rules above do not specifically say there was no requirement to hit a rail "

steve lets see what darrell answers to my questions

 

[darmoose]

steve lets see what darrell answers to my questions

write or call the author of the rules and tell him that....
regardless of your obsevations of what was or wasnt needed
do you agree with what i said?
"there is no mention of the rule for a legal safety. the rules above do not specifically say there was no requirement to hit a rail "
just askin

darell
to me the rules above recommend playing a safety when there was no shot.
there is no mention of the rule for a legal safety. the rules above do not specifically say there was no requirement to hit a rail
the rules for a legal safety was in the official rules of pool for straight pool and all pool players knew that.
i beleive and this is conjecture the specifics of a legal break were spelled out because it differed from straight pool
icbw

Larry,

I was simply pointing out the flaw in your logic that allowed you to connect the dots, so to speak. You say that the specifics of a legal break were spelled out because it differed from straight pool, which is to say that they did not repeat rules that already existed and were well known. However, rules 1, 2, 9, and 10 are also already covered in straight pool or eight ball or nine ball, and yet the writer repeated them here for OP, why? Also, rules 6 and 7 are covered in the Object of the game at the top, and so are not needed in any event.

Additionally, you seem to be saying that the requirement on the break shot to have a ball or the CB hit a rail in the OP rules as shown, logically transfers to what is required for a safety after the break and during the game. That doesn't track using your straight pool analogy because, as I am sure you know, the requirements in straight pool to achieve a legal safety on the break shot are that the CB and two OB's must attain a rail which is quite different than the requirement for a safety after the break and during the game.

So, because of that, I think it is a stretch, and not logically supported, to say that because the OP break requires a ball go to a rail after contact, that they could leave the requirements for a safety during the game undefined, and expect players to connect the dots, like you did.

I simply think that not defining a legal safety in these rules was an oversight, and was most likely discovered maybe during a players meeting, and never got re printed to include this rule (or if it did, we don't have the updated version).

 

[beatle]

the players all new the rules. those were written up for the bystanders and lay people around so they had an idea of what was going on. and whatever popped into their head they included as then few even heard of one pocket, or everyone there that wasnt a player would be asking questions all the time.

 

[lll]

Darrell
Thanks for your interpretation

 

[lll]

the players all new the rules. those were written up for the bystanders and lay people around so they had an idea of what was going on. and whatever popped into their head they included as then few even heard of one pocket, or everyone there that wasnt a player would be asking questions all the time.

Thanks beatle

 

[darmoose]

Darrell
Thanks for your interpretation

Your welcome, Larry. These printed rules were a great find regardless. Do you see my point, or do you still disagree. Seems to me that Beatle may be correct, that these were written mostly for spectators, and I would imagine with the missing rule defining safety play DURING the game, there were questions generated from those not familiar with the game.

Curious as to what Steve thinks now?

 

[NH Steve]

I don't know how I am involved lol. I believe larry found those rules in "Chalk Up!" magazine, that ran in the 60's, but there is a reprinted compilation. That's where I have seen it, along with old issues of National Billiard News.

 

[darmoose]

I don't know how I am involved lol. I believe larry found those rules in "Chalk Up!" magazine, that ran in the 60's, but there is a reprinted compilation. That's where I have seen it, along with old issues of National Billiard News.

Steve,

You're not involved. don't worry, be happy.......

 

[lll]

you have he

Your welcome, Larry. These printed rules were a great find regardless. Do you see my point, or do you still disagree. Seems to me that Beatle may be correct, that these were written mostly for spectators, and I would imagine with the missing rule defining safety play DURING the game, there were questions generated from those not familiar with the game.

Curious as to what Steve thinks now?

darrell
you have heard from me and steve
hope you are happy
stay safe
this thread should be done now
thanks to all

 

[darmoose]

you have he

darrell
you have heard from me and steve
hope you are happy
stay safe
this thread should be done now
thanks to all

Sure.....Larry......I was just asking.......glad to help.....

 

[darmoose]

What I find interesting about the rules back in those days and for some time thereafter, a ball jumped off the table was not a foul and would be spotted immediately, and if the player also scored their play would continue. But, say you are taking a ball out by their hole and it jumped off the table then we would only have one ball spotted.
One ball spotted vs. todays rule of two balls spotted, affords much more shots available for the incoming opponent. Something to think about. Whitey

Whitey,

That's pretty significant isn't it? When did that change, if you know? Seems rules are always evolving.

BTW...Did yo notice lll called this thread over...be careful.

 

[baby huey]

The legimitate break rule troubles me and it always has. The rule states that an object ball or cueball must hit a rail after the rack is struck (I may have inserted my reading of this rule). This rule allows for the shooter to simply hit the rack and send an object ball to the rail not necessarily the cueball. In 14.1 you have to send two object balls to a rail after contacting the rack on the opening break. For some reason, in one pocket this opening break rule was modified? We now see the "Soft Break" rules changing in the rotation games and maybe it's time for a change in One Pocket as well. We have talked about speeding up the game and this is one area where I would like some discussion. I think we should have the same opening break rule for One Pocket as is in 14.1. Any thoughts?

 

[darmoose]

The legimitate break rule troubles me and it always has. The rule states that an object ball or cueball must hit a rail after the rack is struck (I may have inserted my reading of this rule). This rule allows for the shooter to simply hit the rack and send an object ball to the rail not necessarily the cueball. In 14.1 you have to send two object balls to a rail after contacting the rack on the opening break. For some reason, in one pocket this opening break rule was modified? We now see the "Soft Break" rules changing in the rotation games and maybe it's time for a change in One Pocket as well. We have talked about speeding up the game and this is one area where I would like some discussion. I think we should have the same opening break rule for One Pocket as is in 14.1. Any thoughts?

Jerry,

I agree with you, that break where only one OB or the CB goes to a rail is bad news. There's a pretty good player in my room who likes to use that break. He freezes the CB on the front of the stack and pushes the corner ball toward his pocket.

Half the time he gets NO rail at all and so owes a ball, but the opponent is trapped on the stack, and so often either taps or lags, so he also owes one. This is a bad start to the game and it lengthens the game from the get go.

I much prefer that the breaker must get CB and one OB to the rail, but not TWO Ob's, that seems too much.





.

 

[lll]

If you want to discuss more rules
Start a new thread
As i said in my earlier posts
This thread was started to show the old rules vs the new ones
Not to start a rules debate
Or to bring up other rules that anyone thinks should be changed
let this thread end please

 

[darmoose]

If you want to discuss more rules
Start a new thread
As i said in my earlier posts
This thread was started to show the old rules vs the new ones
Not to start a rules debate
Or to bring up other rules that anyone thinks should be changed
let this thread end please

......you are such a kidder....you are kidding, ....right?...