Maybe Earl isn't as crazy as everyone thinks.....
Derby 9ball rack mechanics
- Thread starter nathandumoulin
- Start date
Maybe Earl isn't as crazy as everyone thinks.....
Exactly! I respect Earl a ton. I don't always care for his behavior, but (imo) he's right about the break, jump sticks, etc..
Back in the day you were never allowed to......
Back in the day you were never allowed to touch the rack after it was off.
This trying to tighten the head ball can be used to do allot of things to the rack.
Anyone with their hands on top of the balls was also a no no. Especially if they were racking for you.
There absolutely should be a rule that once the rack is removed the racking is done.
I don't get why they allow it? I know many of these older players know how it used to be. It's just the same old same old with a new twist.
Another way to have the advantage.
Anytime you touch the rack after it is removed should be considered a foul.
This would get rid of the whole mess.
Great post.........................
Back in the day you were never allowed to touch the rack after it was off.
This trying to tighten the head ball can be used to do allot of things to the rack.
Anyone with their hands on top of the balls was also a no no. Especially if they were racking for you.
There absolutely should be a rule that once the rack is removed the racking is done.
I don't get why they allow it? I know many of these older players know how it used to be. It's just the same old same old with a new twist.
Another way to have the advantage.
Anytime you touch the rack after it is removed should be considered a foul.
This would get rid of the whole mess.
Great post.........................
Really dude? I think correcting CJ here is a lame move, you get a "come on man!" for that one.
Last edited:
Yes, the best possible rules are to make the break so that if you make a ball you have the choice of rolling out or making your opponent roll out. One KEY factor is it's Ball in Hand on TWO fouls, so this gives the one rolling out a slight DISADVANTAGE, so the break still means something and you have to get 3 balls past the side.
The break these days is MUCH more than it was in the 90s. I know some "secrets" about the rackthat I swore not to disclose, but I will tell you it's become a huge advantage to know some of the "inside" racking (and breaking) techniques.
I'm a big believer in allowing the game to be the "best it can be," and this break/rack B.S. takes a LOT of the skill out of it. Don't believe me, just ask the top 10 players and see what they say. I know it's suicide to let someone touch the balls AT ALL these days. Enough said.
Paul,
I agree the break and run is important in pool, but not at the expense of the best racker is the best ball runner-and thats what its become, as CJ said in the post above the break now i HUGE compared to 20 years ago, has always been important but no in 9 ball its too important(almost) the 10 ball game on the 10' table took the break out of the picture-there is a great thread on that here on AZB just posted up recently-last couple days.
CJ,
yes i'm hip to "some" of the rack tricks and i swore not to tell so I never have. Problem is some guys are talking here and there and next thing you know its a racking event not a pool event. Cause were all figuring things out, some guys know 10X what I do, i'm not the smartest guy with the rack, but im smart enough to know that its a problem in pool at the pro level IMO. Not so much at the A level.
A little while ago, I was talking to Bobby Chamberlain about this...
we both had the same thought at different times.
It takes virtually NOTHING to get a neutral racker. No time invested, no money invested.
There are plenty of fans who would be willing to rack for FREE, if you just let them stand somewhere close to the action and sweat the match. And a 9 year old can do it with the MBR.
Neither player can ever be neutral so we'll always be having this debate.
Only a third party can fix it. I still think magic rack on the spot is very hard to 'game' but with a third party you go from 98% argument-free to 100%.
Paul's right to question the idea of mandatory pushout. It ruins some of the entertainment value. In buddy's article someone recently linked, it sounds like texas express was born because rollouts slowed everything down and were dull to watch.
Break'n'runs are part of the pool collective consciousness. They're just too ingrained, they're what fans expect and want and you will get no traction trying to reverse that trend.
Unfortunately, the same argument can be used against no-conflict rules. Nobody will ever consider a break-dry-and-run a true runout. It feels like letting a golfer drive once, then sink the ball on his second shot, and labelling it a hole-in-one.
Paul, you've asked how no conflict could be gamed... I think the main concern is, players will simply soft break to guarantee a look at the 1. Already guys like shane can hit a ball warp speed and somehow his 1 ball ends up in the same 2 square foot area over and over. Let him hit 11 mph with no penalty for a dry break. He might literally go ten racks before an unlucky roll clusters up 2 balls in a way that prevents the runout.
we both had the same thought at different times.
It takes virtually NOTHING to get a neutral racker. No time invested, no money invested.
There are plenty of fans who would be willing to rack for FREE, if you just let them stand somewhere close to the action and sweat the match. And a 9 year old can do it with the MBR.
Neither player can ever be neutral so we'll always be having this debate.
Only a third party can fix it. I still think magic rack on the spot is very hard to 'game' but with a third party you go from 98% argument-free to 100%.
Paul's right to question the idea of mandatory pushout. It ruins some of the entertainment value. In buddy's article someone recently linked, it sounds like texas express was born because rollouts slowed everything down and were dull to watch.
Break'n'runs are part of the pool collective consciousness. They're just too ingrained, they're what fans expect and want and you will get no traction trying to reverse that trend.
Unfortunately, the same argument can be used against no-conflict rules. Nobody will ever consider a break-dry-and-run a true runout. It feels like letting a golfer drive once, then sink the ball on his second shot, and labelling it a hole-in-one.
Paul, you've asked how no conflict could be gamed... I think the main concern is, players will simply soft break to guarantee a look at the 1. Already guys like shane can hit a ball warp speed and somehow his 1 ball ends up in the same 2 square foot area over and over. Let him hit 11 mph with no penalty for a dry break. He might literally go ten racks before an unlucky roll clusters up 2 balls in a way that prevents the runout.
The integrity must be put back into 9 Ball, not taken away.
I was on the same point you made about the spectators deciding about the rules....it's no better than the promoters deciding on the rules. imo
You want to play "break and first shot" rules, rather than you have to pocket a ball to shoot again. This will bring in a whole new set of issues that also make the game no better than a "carnival game".
To bring the skill into the game you could play with a mandatory rollout to start the game after the break. This roll out could be in a designated place on the table to make it interesting.
Break and first shot rules are a "Super Rack Running Fiasco"....and if that's what you want, have at it. Like I said before, I have no opinion on amateur tournaments, if you use this with pros, well that would be even more boring that it is now.
The integrity must be put back into 9 Ball, not taken away. Roll out rules and racking the 9 on the spot would be a huge improvement, that's for sure.
I was on the same point you made about the spectators deciding about the rules....it's no better than the promoters deciding on the rules. imo
You want to play "break and first shot" rules, rather than you have to pocket a ball to shoot again. This will bring in a whole new set of issues that also make the game no better than a "carnival game".
To bring the skill into the game you could play with a mandatory rollout to start the game after the break. This roll out could be in a designated place on the table to make it interesting.
Break and first shot rules are a "Super Rack Running Fiasco"....and if that's what you want, have at it. Like I said before, I have no opinion on amateur tournaments, if you use this with pros, well that would be even more boring that it is now.
The integrity must be put back into 9 Ball, not taken away. Roll out rules and racking the 9 on the spot would be a huge improvement, that's for sure.
Promoters do not decide. The players and the spectators rule. If they don't like what you are doing, they won't show up. Where are you then?
You have not played under the No Conflict Rules. You do not know what they mean. You are speculating. There is much more there than you are imagining. The better the player, the better the rules are.
Last edited:
Paul, do you have any statistics from your No-Contest-Rules events showing the percentages of break-and-run games or games that the breaker wins? I know you get some good players for those events; results for those players in particular would be interesting.
Yes, I have all of that. Off the top of my head, I am thinking of four players that may be of interest. They are all good regional players and have all played in many pro events:
Gary Nolan (Bushwhacker)
Eddie Abraham from Philadelphia
Dave Grau from Rochester
Shane Winters from Michigan
I will get their stats on here soon.
they had a justified conflict of interest, just like yourself
No, we have to agree to disagree. There's no instance when the general public voted on the rules of any pool game. The Texas Express rules were made to speed up play so promoters could run the tournaments faster and more efficiently. Like I said, they had a justified conflict of interest, just like yourself, Paul. I have no issue with this, it's natural in business of any kind.
You run tournaments and want them to run smoothly and get maximum fields. I am a top player and want the rules to reflect the most skill and bring out the subtle beauty of the game. Can we ever agree? Probably not, but I see your point and I've lived with this effect on the game for many years.
At some point, at the professional level the game is going to have to be 100% to get the recognition I'd like to see. You have a different agenda dealing with semi pro events and like I said before, I have no interest in the quick "fast food style" tournaments. I only care about promoting the game in the best way possible. 'The Game is the Teacher'
No, we have to agree to disagree. There's no instance when the general public voted on the rules of any pool game. The Texas Express rules were made to speed up play so promoters could run the tournaments faster and more efficiently. Like I said, they had a justified conflict of interest, just like yourself, Paul. I have no issue with this, it's natural in business of any kind.
You run tournaments and want them to run smoothly and get maximum fields. I am a top player and want the rules to reflect the most skill and bring out the subtle beauty of the game. Can we ever agree? Probably not, but I see your point and I've lived with this effect on the game for many years.
At some point, at the professional level the game is going to have to be 100% to get the recognition I'd like to see. You have a different agenda dealing with semi pro events and like I said before, I have no interest in the quick "fast food style" tournaments. I only care about promoting the game in the best way possible. 'The Game is the Teacher'
Obv CJ is refering to the "break and first shot" Rule that you include in the "No Conflict rules". His point is the game gets watered down to a runout game (More not less than in Texas express). He thinks this is the oposite of an improvement. I agree with him because 2way shots and moves are way more skillful than running road maps. I would guess these rules,at the pro level, would cause the top players to runout till they got bored. Many 11-0 runout the whole set type matches. I Don't think this is what we need to put this game back on the map. MHO
The think about "free cover" is it sends out a clear message that there's no value.
Yes, the position of the spectators making a difference is a mute point. I haven't even seen a cover charge for pro events in the last couple of years. The negative impact about the "free cover" is it sends out a clear message that there's no value. I made over 10k at the door in many of my pro events in Dallas and it paid for most of the TV coverage. How many of us trust "free food, free service, or free advice?" Even dancers know the penalty of giving anything away for free. :groucho:
There was enough money spent by everyone at this DCC to pay for major TV coverage every week for 13 straight weeks. Yes, we can see basketball, football and golf free on TV, but try to find a NBA, NFL, or PGA event that doesn't charge to get in. They spend money advertising and marketing their game, our BCA used to run TV commercials in the 90's ...do they now? "Out of sight, out of mind"
I was in the night club business for many years, I understand how "perceived value" works.....the reason there's no cover charge or ticket prices at pro events is because there's no advertising or marketing being done....no press releases, radio/tv ads, etc. The best thing we could do right now is combine the women's and men's events again....we KNOW that works, it automatically creates synergy and quadruples attendance.
Break and first shot rules for pros would be like 300 year par 4s for pro golfers.....Driver/wedge, Driver/wedge/, Driver/wedge....please, let's not make worst than it already is, it would be like watching boxers taking turns hitting a bag for 12 straight rounds. We need something much different, it's called EXCITEMENT - LET's GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!
Yes, the position of the spectators making a difference is a mute point. I haven't even seen a cover charge for pro events in the last couple of years. The negative impact about the "free cover" is it sends out a clear message that there's no value. I made over 10k at the door in many of my pro events in Dallas and it paid for most of the TV coverage. How many of us trust "free food, free service, or free advice?" Even dancers know the penalty of giving anything away for free. :groucho:
There was enough money spent by everyone at this DCC to pay for major TV coverage every week for 13 straight weeks. Yes, we can see basketball, football and golf free on TV, but try to find a NBA, NFL, or PGA event that doesn't charge to get in. They spend money advertising and marketing their game, our BCA used to run TV commercials in the 90's ...do they now? "Out of sight, out of mind"
I was in the night club business for many years, I understand how "perceived value" works.....the reason there's no cover charge or ticket prices at pro events is because there's no advertising or marketing being done....no press releases, radio/tv ads, etc. The best thing we could do right now is combine the women's and men's events again....we KNOW that works, it automatically creates synergy and quadruples attendance.
Break and first shot rules for pros would be like 300 year par 4s for pro golfers.....Driver/wedge, Driver/wedge/, Driver/wedge....please, let's not make worst than it already is, it would be like watching boxers taking turns hitting a bag for 12 straight rounds. We need something much different, it's called EXCITEMENT - LET's GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!
You too are speculating. Until a player has experience with these rules, he cannot understand what they mean.
These rules cannot put pool back on the map. They are a good fix for a long standing problem that has plagued our short games.
You have just made my point.
I will say it again. Until you have some experience with the No Conflict Rules, you will not know what they mean.
My unsolicited 2 cents. Why don't they have racker/referees when they get down to a certain number of places? There has to be a ton of people/serious fans who would do it for free. People know who's betting who (they aren't your rackers).
It adds a lot more prestige to the match having a "racker" and speeds the match the players can read the rack, but not call for a re-rack if the rack is continually "jacked up" the tournament director can make the ruling to substitute another racker/referee.
As an amateur I like to see pro tournaments because they're doing things amateurs can't consistently do and so you learn from them. I don't care what rotation games they play as long as it isn't 7 ball (what a waste of talent). I do wish they brought back rules that facilitate the spot shot. I would like to see a limited field 15 ((61) ball rotation pro tournament
Watching players puzzle over a rack for several minutes while the commentators make comments about how somebody is pulling something over on who without explaining what the players are doing isn't conducive to fan enjoyment.
It adds a lot more prestige to the match having a "racker" and speeds the match the players can read the rack, but not call for a re-rack if the rack is continually "jacked up" the tournament director can make the ruling to substitute another racker/referee.
As an amateur I like to see pro tournaments because they're doing things amateurs can't consistently do and so you learn from them. I don't care what rotation games they play as long as it isn't 7 ball (what a waste of talent). I do wish they brought back rules that facilitate the spot shot. I would like to see a limited field 15 ((61) ball rotation pro tournament
Watching players puzzle over a rack for several minutes while the commentators make comments about how somebody is pulling something over on who without explaining what the players are doing isn't conducive to fan enjoyment.
The No Conflict Rules require alternating breaks.
Now those are long holes!
that alone is bad enough.