8, 9, 10 ball racking & breaking conflict resolved

Paul Schofield

Paul Schofield

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
On Saturday in the middle of a blizzard, I ran a regional Nine-Ball event at Gold Crown Billiards at my room in Erie, PA. Forty-four snow-birds showed up from four states. The rules were as follows:

http://www.goldcrownbilliardseriepa.com/noconflict.html

Lag for break
Alternate breaks
No pattern racking (we have a simple procedure, takes 3 seconds)
Breaker racks his own then breaks
No checking the rack, no approval process
Nine on the break is not a win, it spots
Breaker shoots after a legal break (do not need to make a ball)

The event flowed quickly and smoothly. There was not one conflict over the racking and breaking process. The rules were accepted rather well. As a matter of fact, there turned out to be many hidden benefits as a result of these rules (I won’t mention them at this time).

Even though some players may play to pocket the head ball or second ball in the side or a wing ball in the corner, it is more often than not that an unintended ball in an unintended pocket is what enables the shooter to continue shooting after the break under the current rules. Slamming the balls with the hope of slopping a ball or two in, has little to do with playing good pool. At the same time, a control break, getting a good spread on the balls, controlling the cue ball, controlling the 1-ball, and getting that first shot, is what our game is all about and what ought to be rewarded, not slopping balls in. Get rid of the ball on the break requirement and we will clear up all the conflict and have better games (Eight, Nine, Ten-Ball).

This is no experiment. My players in my room have played upwards of a quarter of a million racks of Eight, Nine, and Ten-Ball removing the ball on the break requirement. They like it and have acclimated well to it. It does take some time to adjust. Change is hard. Think through it. It makes a lot of sense.

I encourage tournament and league organizers to consider and try these rules and if anyone would like more info and would like to discuss it, PM me.
 
Last edited:
I was at this event and it was a packed house. For a tournament with that many players, I didn’t hear one complaint or argument about the racks or racking in general. Because this is my home room and I’m used to playing this way all the time, I asked several players from all different skill levels what they thought of the new rules (ie: not having to make a ball after the break, and racking your own) and most of them thought the idea was different, but that the rules accomplished what they were trying to, eliminate arguments, slow play, and a lot of the luck from the break. I agree, the new format does make a lot of sense.

All-in-all, I’d say a pretty successful tournament with the rules being accepted rather quickly, and most people looked like they were having a lot more fun playing pool with far less arguments.
 
Hmmmm, maybe you're on to something here. I wonder how this would work in a professional tourney? There would be a lot of alternate sitting, if you know what I mean.

Maniac
 
hi

Paul Schofield said:
On Saturday in the middle of a blizzard, I ran a regional Nine-Ball event at Gold Crown Billiards at my room in Erie, PA. Forty-four snow-birds showed up from four states. The rules were as follows:

Alternate breaks
No pattern racking (we have a simple procedure, takes 3 seconds)
Breaker racks
Breaker shoots after a legal break (do not need to make a ball)
Nine on the break is not a win, it spots
No checking the rack, no approval process

The event flowed quickly and smoothly. There was not one conflict over the racking and breaking process. The rules were accepted rather well. As a matter of fact, there turned out to be many hidden benefits as a result of these rules (I won’t mention them at this time).

Even though some players may play to pocket the head ball or second ball in the side or a corner ball in the corner, it is more often than not that it is an unintended ball in an unintended pocket that enables the shooter to continue shooting under the current rules. In other words slamming the balls with the hope of slopping a ball or two in, has little to do with playing good pool. At the same time, a control break, getting a good spread on the balls, controlling the cue ball, controlling the 1-ball, and getting that first shot, is what our game is all about and what ought to be what is rewarded, not slopping balls in. Get rid of the ball on the break requirement and we will clear up all the conflict and have better games (Eight, Nine, Ten-Ball).

This is no experiment. My players in my room have played upwards of a quarter of a million racks of Eight, Nine, and Ten-Ball removing the ball on the break requirement. They like it and have acclimated well to it. It does take some time to adjust. Change is hard. Think through it. It makes a lot of sense.

I encourage tournament and league organizers to consider and try these rules and if anyone would like more info and would like to discuss it, PM me.
Click to expand...

ive been saying this for 10 years. this is exactly how the games should be played in my opinion . nuff said
 
Interesting idea. Would you mind commenting on how you get around the pattern racking? If you dont want to say so here would you send me a PM?

The only ones that I would think might object would be those that feel that have a much better break than everyone else. But I would think that peoples focus on the break would REALLY switch towards controling the cueball, which is where it should be anyway.

Your idea IMO has more potential than any other rule change suggestion I have ever heard. When you get a couple of good players matched up, it often depends on the luck of the break to determine the winner. Of course there is skill to the break, and reading racks, but it often really comes down to the luck of the rolls.

Woody
 
racking process

Racking Process:

1. The breaker retrieves balls from the side pockets and the head corner pockets.
2. The non-breaker retrieves balls from the foot pockets.
3. The non-breaker places 9 balls in he rack.
4. Without looking down at the rack, the non-breaker spins the rack once or twice.
5. Again without looking down at the rack, he pushes the balls up to the nine-ball configuration.
6. The non-breaker now looks down at the rack.
7. First he moves the 1-ball to the head ball position and moves the ball that was in the head ball position to where the 1-ball was.
8. He then moves the 9-ball to the middle position and moves the ball that was in the middle ball position to where the 9-ball was.
9. The non-breaker now steps away from the rack.
10. The breaker pushes the balls up to the spot (racks his own). He may not change the ball positions in the rack.
11. No one is permitted to check his rack and no one has a right to approve or disapprove the rack.
 
I welcome people to check my racks. I place the head ball on the spot, pull the other balls back, let it settle and gently pull the rack back tight to the head ball. I then gently push the remaining balls in the rack up and tighten them. It takes 10 seconds at most but it gives a tight rack every time. If the bangers didn't tap the head ball it could be quicker. I began doing this to satisfy one player who inspects every rack and it's becoming contagious where I play. Funny thing is he can't give himself a tight rack and removes the spot every night out of frustration.
 
Paul Schofield said:
On Saturday in the middle of a blizzard, I ran a regional Nine-Ball event at Gold Crown Billiards at my room in Erie, PA. Forty-four snow-birds showed up from four states. The rules were as follows:

Alternate breaks
No pattern racking (we have a simple procedure, takes 3 seconds)
Breaker racks
Breaker shoots after a legal break (do not need to make a ball)
Nine on the break is not a win, it spots
No checking the rack, no approval process

The event flowed quickly and smoothly. There was not one conflict over the racking and breaking process. The rules were accepted rather well. As a matter of fact, there turned out to be many hidden benefits as a result of these rules (I won’t mention them at this time).

Even though some players may play to pocket the head ball or second ball in the side or a corner ball in the corner, it is more often than not that it is an unintended ball in an unintended pocket that enables the shooter to continue shooting under the current rules. In other words slamming the balls with the hope of slopping a ball or two in, has little to do with playing good pool. At the same time, a control break, getting a good spread on the balls, controlling the cue ball, controlling the 1-ball, and getting that first shot, is what our game is all about and what ought to be what is rewarded, not slopping balls in. Get rid of the ball on the break requirement and we will clear up all the conflict and have better games (Eight, Nine, Ten-Ball).

This is no experiment. My players in my room have played upwards of a quarter of a million racks of Eight, Nine, and Ten-Ball removing the ball on the break requirement. They like it and have acclimated well to it. It does take some time to adjust. Change is hard. Think through it. It makes a lot of sense.

I encourage tournament and league organizers to consider and try these rules and if anyone would like more info and would like to discuss it, PM me.
Click to expand...

this does sound good. things are far from "resolved" though. let's say 2 players played their race perfect. the first guy to break would win simply because he got there first (not cus he played better). maybe put a must win by 2?

i can tell you just from looking at what you said, if a process takes you 3 seconds to "randomize" the balls, it may not be as random as you think. but i'm sure it will suffice.

also, ive seen these rules give a guy a perfect layout after making the nine, then the 9 spots up frozen to the cb and he's in a dead trap. change is hard, you are right, ive never seen what would be wrong with just making the highest numbered ball on the table the "9" if it's made on the break.
 
enzo said:
things are far from "resolved" though. let's say 2 players played their race perfect. the first guy to break would win simply because he got there first (not cus he played better). maybe put a must win by 2?
Click to expand...

If the first break is decided by a lag, then the winner of the lag DID end up playing better.

{But this is why I dislike alternating breaks--a story for another day}
 
i personally don't like this idea at all. you have taken god knows how much practice time i've put into breaking over the years and made it meaningless. the break, just like any other shot, is a skill shot. a high percentage of matches are won by the player with the better break.
 
Paul Schofield said:
Racking Process:

1. The breaker retrieves balls from the side pockets and the head corner pockets.
2. The non-breaker retrieves balls from the foot pockets.
3. The non-breaker places 9 balls in he rack.
4. Without looking down at the rack, the non-breaker spins the rack once or twice.
5. Again without looking down at the rack, he pushes the balls up to the nine-ball configuration.
6. The non-breaker now looks down at the rack.
7. First he moves the 1-ball to the head ball position and moves the ball that was in the head ball position to where the 1-ball was.
8. He then moves the 9-ball to the middle position and moves the ball that was in the middle ball position to where the 9-ball was.
9. The non-breaker now steps away from the rack.
10. The breaker pushes the balls up to the spot (racks his own). He may not change the ball positions in the rack.
11. No one is permitted to check his rack and no one has a right to approve or disapprove the rack.
Click to expand...


I made a player who was about to play the ghost and rack his own use this random process. It was super fast, and worked great (he beat the ghost anyway). It really is easy, just throw the balls in, and then without looking, arrange them into the diamond shape. Then put the 1 and 9 where they are supposed to go, and put the displaced balls in their place.
 
Wow!

Fenwick said:
I welcome people to check my racks. I place the head ball on the spot, pull the other balls back, let it settle and gently pull the rack back tight to the head ball. I then gently push the remaining balls in the rack up and tighten them. It takes 10 seconds at most but it gives a tight rack every time. If the bangers didn't tap the head ball it could be quicker. I began doing this to satisfy one player who inspects every rack and it's becoming contagious where I play. Funny thing is he can't give himself a tight rack and removes the spot every night out of frustration.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of this.I went to 3 tables and it worked on every one.
I attribute my ignorance to inexperience...aint racked but 4 million times.
Thanx Fenwick....also Neil...where i saw the quote.
 
I like this idea. It does level the field and takes some of the luck out of the game. If the break is such a skillfull shot, make the break a call shot. If you don't make the ball you've called (one in the side or the wing ball in the corner) you're done shooting until your opponent misses.

I've heard the reasoning that the guy with the best break should win. That's true if you take the luck out of it. If the match is won because one guy lucked in a ball on the break and the other didn't (even on only one break), how is that winner considered the best guy at the table...luck.

JMHO...Ken
 
Im not crazy about the idea. Is'nt that why tournaments have handicaps given to lower players. The break and the push out often can determine the winner. Rack your own is the best. If you dont get a good break it's not anyones fault but your own.
 
I think a couple are missing the point, this new type of breaking doesn't "flush all those hard years of work down the toilet" it simply rewards those people that control their cueball and the one ball placement. THIS IS NOT LUCK, it is a hard-earned skill where the better player WILL win not because he or she broke the balls the hardest and LUCKED a ball in, but because he/she controlled the cue ball and 1-ball and ran out.

Also, the PUSH shot isn't eliminated in this format. If you still don't have a shot after the break, you can still push out just like normal. So that skill isn't lost either.

The break is a very important shot of the game and this format does one VERY IMPORTANT thing, it completely eliminates the arguments about the racking. Which, if you've been to any real tournaments lately, you will see how important that really is.
 
Paul Schofield said:
...
Alternate breaks
No pattern racking (we have a simple procedure, takes 3 seconds)
Breaker racks
Breaker shoots after a legal break (do not need to make a ball)
Nine on the break is not a win, it spots
No checking the rack, no approval process
...
Click to expand...
It's been clear for at least 10 years that the break at nine ball is broken. If the rack is tight, a ball is almost guaranteed to go in. If the rack is loose, the breaker was cheated. Some of the responses show that many players are unaware of what happens with a really tight rack -- it's likely that they have never had the chance to break except on randomly pitted old cloth using flimsy, worthless plastic racks.

First with the Sardo, and now with tapped tables and the Magic Rack, it's possible to have nearly perfect racks.

Books have been written about how to cheat with the rack (and how to avoid being cheated), and secret gaffs have been passed from one petty thief to another. Tournaments have stopped for 10-15 minutes at a time to resolve arguments about the rack.

I think Paul's rules above solve the problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top