pocket said:

In my opinion, that is just an invitation for folks to argue.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what "all ball fouls" is without a ref. Anyone who has played much under "all ball fouls" out in the real world of typical poolrooms and bars and amateur local tournaments should know that.

dr_dave said:

Thanks, Stu.



This doesn’t seem to be much of a problem except in the US. Maybe it is time for Americans to learn how to play the game properly. You should not be touching balls you are not supposed to touch. If you start getting penalized for it, you will probably start doing it much less frequently.

Regardless, the American pool leagle systems seem intent on having their own rules anyway. The list of league rule differences is quite long.

Click to expand...

In my experience, all ball fouls should only be two situations:

1 When a ref is present and watching, and they are the only one authorized to make a call.
2 When you have two players that agree to play that way, because they are both under significantly better than average control of body, hair, cue and clothing while playing, and they trust each other.

The prior WPA rules had it right for the option "may be played" cue ball fouls only when no referee was present, in my opinion.

Beginners, elders and most amateurs are prone to inadvertent ball contact. Apparently the WPA does not want their rules to be a good fit for those VERY large swaths of our pool playing demographic. Pro tournaments -- at least you have pros playing, who are more aware.

The other really big reason not to play all ball fouls without a referee is the distinct and inviting likelihood of an opponent (or maybe a bystander??) making a timely/untimely call and you have NO NEUTRAL PARTY to adjudicate. Did that shirt touch or did it not? It's asking for trouble in my opinion, which presumably is why even the WPA had it as an option for when no ref was present.

Yes, I'm curious about how the discussion went for the removal of cue ball fouls only. Why not share the private discussion?

Thankfully One Pocket still has the option of "cue ball fouls only" in the most "Official" and complete set of One Pocket rules that are available -- those on onepocket.org. And since game rules always trump general rules -- there you go

Im all for tighter pockets, but sub-4inch is a bit much I think... not to mention the open pocket facings... that looks miserable.

interesting read and thorough description of your journey
check your PM

There is, I think, an important thing commonly missed when people analyze easy vs hard equipment. I'll illustrate with a particular scenario. You're playing 9-Ball, and there are 5 balls on the table that are not tied up but you are starting with a long shot. Let's compare this situation on easy and hard tables and imagine your opponent is similarly skilled as you.

Three things can happen when you try to get out from here
A: you succeed
B: You fail and your opponent also fails and returns control of the game to you
C: You fail and your opponent either gets out or retains control of the game

The chance of direct success, i.e., A, can be very different on easy vs hard equipment. It might be 65% on the easy table and 35% on the hard table. It is important not to look at this in isolation, though, and conclude incorrectly that the GAME is easier on easy equipment. Though failure is less likely on the easy equipment, that failure being punished is more likely. And these things kind of balance out.

Easy equipment:
A: 65% chance you succeed
B: 35% that you failed X 35% that your opponent subsequently fails returning control to you (12%)
C: 35% that you failed X 65% that your opponent wins the game or retains control (23%)
Tough equipment:
A: 35% chance you succeed
B: 65% that you failed X 65% that your opponent subsequently fails returning control to you (42%)
C: 65% that you failed X 35% that your opponent wins the game or retains control (23%)

In both cases, you are looking at about a 77% chance of overall success (A or B) and a 23% chance of failure (C). So you should be sweating about the same amount staring at that long shot on either table despite that shot looking easier on the easy table.

So given that your opponent effectively gets better as the equipment gets easier, there is a sense in which the GAME in the bigger picture is pretty independent of the equipment and really depends primarily on your opponent. That's not a bad thing.