More Suggestions
Hey Joe,
I just read the American Rotation rules in their entirety. I have a couple more suggestions. Basically these are suggestions just to make the game easier to learn. They would change rules that don't really seem to be necessary. The easier the game is to learn, implement, and enforce, the better it will catch hold. It would also be an advantage if the commentators didn't have to struggle with it. It'll keep the viewer's interest better that way. And I don't think any of the suggestions I'm about to make change any important strategies or nuances as you intended them to exist.
So take these suggestions as constructive. I like the game and I like the idea of the new ABC League and I hope they both succeed.
1. If you scratch on the break, the other player gets the points and gets the table and gets ball in hand. (Did I miss something? Were the players in the 100 point match playing by the same rules that I just read on your website?) It just will seem very foreign to people to scratch on the break and get to keep shooting. And scratching on the break is still showing a lack of skill or lack of control (for that moment anyway). So why shouldn't the offender be "punished"?
2. Same idea with jumping balls off the table when breaking. It's a foul any other time. Why make exceptions for this? Leave the ball or balls down, the other player gets the points, and the other player comes to the table with ball in hand.
3. After missing a called shot with an inadvertent ball being pocketed or a called safety with a ball being pocketed: I think I like that the incoming player has choice (I wouldn't suggest you change it even if I didn't like it - that's a major thing and is "designer's prerogative"). BUT I think the "non-offending player" should get the points regardless of whether or not he chooses to give the shot back to the "offending player". The reason I suggest this...
What if the offending player is on 149 points and the position is lock-up? The "non-offending" player has to take the shot or he gives the game to the player on 149. But by being forced to take the shot that is lock-up, the wrong person is getting punished for the "error".
The first three, I suggest strongly. They make the rules cleaner - more consistent in implementation throughout the contest, and therefore easier to absorb for people playing the game. And again, I don't think they change any important strategies or nuances as you intended them to exist.
The next suggestion I feel less strongly about, but the existing three-foul rule does repeat the element of being inconsistent with the way the rest of pool games are played, therefore making it harder to learn, implement, and enforce.
4. If a player commits three consecutive fouls, subtract x points from his score. Re-rack the balls with the non-offending player having the break (regardless of previous alternating break sequence) with the usual ball in hand after the break. The alternating break sequence would begin anew with the offending player getting the subsequent break.
I don't dislike the rule. I think it is a kinda interesting way to solve the problem of a locked up table. But it is an anomaly in pool, so if you do leave the three-foul rule as it is, it needs to be explained more clearly than in either of the two matches I've seen on You Tube so far. Their saying "it's just like the free shot in snooker" didn't help. How many people who play pool in this country also play snooker? I wouldn't know what that meant.
I think people need to have it explained VERY CLEARLY that the *free shot* consists of being allowed to shoot ANY ball, that a ball does NOT have to be pocketed to continue, and that it is THEN FOLLOWED by ball in hand for the same player.
Actually, the more I think about it, I feel kinda strongly about this rule too. It's just really inconsistent with normal pool rules.
That's all
thanks
Fatz
