Joe T
New member
I have to think he thought he was going to hit the 8 fatter and go more towards the 6 maybe even 2 cushions.
American Rotation race to 100 via Accu Stats
- Thread starter Joe T
- Start date
I have to think he thought he was going to hit the 8 fatter and go more towards the 6 maybe even 2 cushions.
Is jump cues allowed???
Joe T
New member
I don't think you can ban jump cues from any specific game but you can for tournaments or leagues. In the ABCL players can only jump with their playing cue, not break cue or jump cue.
Will they play stymies and not be allowed sand wedges? Hickory shafts only??
Joe T
New member
Yes to stymies, sand wedges from the floor and we may allow them to use corked cues?
A general theme here is America, as in American pool players and we feel that forcing them to kick more will make them stronger players in the long run.
Have to disagree. After playing several matches it really is the complete game. You are forced to use safeties, strategy,and total shot making.
Maybe a compromise between the camps then......
I'd rather see a player learn to play a strong safety and not a weak one...
With all of the congestion players are going to learn to kick based simply on playing bad shape or bumping balls and getting hooked....
I'd like to see the jump cue legal on the first shot at your turn on the table... Getting a ball between the cueball and object ball with lots of space is a weak safety and should be penalized by allowing the jump cue... This will teach players to try and freeze the balls when playing safe...
At the upper level you know the safety play is about distance and getting in tight with whitey if you want to win....
This way you have to learn both skill sets which continues with the theme of making American Rotation a true all around test.....
Chris
It plays pretty nicely.
If there is one thing I would change it would be to get rid of the alternate break and make it where the person who sinks the last ball of the previous rack breaks the next incomming rack.
The way you have this set up right now it is impossible for high runs to be established and you end up with issues such as at the end of the Burford/Shaw match where Burford had little chance to win because even if he had managed to get the last few balls of the second to last rack Shaw was no matter what going to get to break the next game and get ball in hand.
You definately want the game to have the potential of creating it's own "526" moments or a legendary 150 and out type of event.
I also think that the breaker should only get to stay on the table with their ball in hand if they do not scratch. If you scratch the cueball the opponent should come to the table with the ball in hand. Shaw and Burford both looked like they could not care less about cueball control when they were breaking, and why would they? Seeing the big golf drive is a cool thing, but keeping the ball in the fairway should always be part of the game.
Cool start though, tweak those couple things and I think this could be huge.
If there is one thing I would change it would be to get rid of the alternate break and make it where the person who sinks the last ball of the previous rack breaks the next incomming rack.
The way you have this set up right now it is impossible for high runs to be established and you end up with issues such as at the end of the Burford/Shaw match where Burford had little chance to win because even if he had managed to get the last few balls of the second to last rack Shaw was no matter what going to get to break the next game and get ball in hand.
You definately want the game to have the potential of creating it's own "526" moments or a legendary 150 and out type of event.
I also think that the breaker should only get to stay on the table with their ball in hand if they do not scratch. If you scratch the cueball the opponent should come to the table with the ball in hand. Shaw and Burford both looked like they could not care less about cueball control when they were breaking, and why would they? Seeing the big golf drive is a cool thing, but keeping the ball in the fairway should always be part of the game.
Cool start though, tweak those couple things and I think this could be huge.
Last edited:
Joe T
New member
I'm kind of with you on this as a good option, jump cue on first shot only is interesting.
Joe T
New member
I had similar thoughts with the high run stuff and still do, I'll have to do some more experimenting first hand with top players. For high runs now we do have "Perfect 20's per match?" and that'll keep'em busy for a while, it would be nice to have 56, 75, 100! not sure how much it would help though, we'll see.
For the scratch on the break I don't think I'll be giving the opponent BIH but might implement a 5 point penalty, soo many scratches on the break are just the results of kiss? Keeep'em coming Celt I've always respected your thoughts on the game.
I tend to agree with Celtic on everything he said. Joe, you have a very elegant game here just based on the fundamental concept of a hybrid between Rotation and Straight Pool. Adding too many ingredients isn't really necessary. Add to that the concept of making the game fit within the normal rules of pool as much as possible in order to make it easier to teach, watch, referee and commentate, which will in turn make it more likely to be accepted on a mass basis. I do see that you are also wanting to eliminate as much luck as possible.
The chance for high runs would do a lot for this game to gain notoriety. 15 ball rotation is very tough even with BIH at the beginning of a rack (I think the BIH at the beginning of the rack is a brilliant idea - not only does it eliminate that luck factor of getting hooked after the break, but it makes the game just that little bit easier to just the right degree that it needs to make it reasonable). Now then, add back in a different challenge in a new vein. Allow the possibility to make and break records, to create history, to elevate any one particular match to a new level of the pool world's consciousness. Numbers like 526 and 714 are a large part of the aura of their respective sports. And I don't see a down side either. In straight pool, your opponent might run 150 and out (speaking of the pros of course), and you are stuck in the chair for virtually the entire game. With the difficulty of rotation, I don't see that happening, I'd think the tremendous, news event type runs would be say 60's or 70's. This game is going to allow both players their chance at the table even with some high runs involved.
And I completely agree with Celtic about the way these guys were breaking. Watching them blast the break with no regard for cue ball control was undignified. You want American pool players to get better right? Make them hit the break good! I understand your reluctance to punish the breaking player for a scratch because sometimes bad luck can cause a scratch on the break. But you have eliminated most of the luck factors by having BIH after the break and option to pass the table back after a miss. With my suggestion below of all balls being worth one point, I would still say play to 150. This would make for a longer game and have a tendency to balance out luck factors.
If you do allow jump cues, then the rule of allowing it only on the first shot of your inning is OK. I hate seeing someone hook themselves and then whip out the jump cue. But really, I like the "no jump cues period" rule best. Make people become better at kicking, by all means.
I don't know if you are in the market for wholesale changes, but I'll suggest the below rule set based on what you started with and taking Celtic's points to heart, because I agree with them completely. Most of this is what I already suggested, but also making each ball worth only one point and Celtics ideas that you break the next rack if you pocket the last ball on the previous rack and if you scratch on the break you would lose your turn.
I hope this suggested rule set is a well integrated and a sensible offering for you to consider. It would be really great if you could get eight top players together to do a mini-tournament and try out some of the suggestions you are getting.
~~~~~~~~~~
Lag for the break.
After the break, take ball in hand.
Shoot the balls in rotation.
Call shot/call safeties.
Pass back option after a missed shot.
Each ball is worth one point.
Whoever pockets the last ball of the rack breaks the next rack.
If you foul on the break, you lose your turn and the incoming player gets ball in hand.
All balls pocketed or jumped off the table on a foul (break shot or otherwise) stay down and the non-offending player gets the points and ball in hand.
If a player commits three consecutive fouls, subtract x (15?) (10% of whatever the race is too?) points from his score. Re-rack the balls with the non-offending player having the break with the usual ball in hand after the break.
After missing a called shot with an inadvertent ball being pocketed or a called safety with a ball being pocketed, spot the ball(s), no player is awarded points (make a special rule for this on bar boxes).
Fatz
I think all these discussions about the rules are interesting but confusing.
Let the rules go for a season and see where the problems are.
The beauty of existing rules are 20 point s per rack.
The minute you get too much like straight pool and penalties etc - you loose the ability to know where you are.
The app is designed for 20 points per rack.
Just my thoughts - but Joe know better than I do.
Please take my points seriously becaue it is important that the players do not get confused with alls these options.
Mark Griffin
Let the rules go for a season and see where the problems are.
The beauty of existing rules are 20 point s per rack.
The minute you get too much like straight pool and penalties etc - you loose the ability to know where you are.
The app is designed for 20 points per rack.
Just my thoughts - but Joe know better than I do.
Please take my points seriously becaue it is important that the players do not get confused with alls these options.
Mark Griffin
Mark =) No panicking yet
Joe has said no changes for the first season and will ask the players about possible changes AFTER they have had a good dose of it under their belts....
I know you are running full bore and likely just caught the tail of this and haven't had a chance to talk to Joe but he isn't changing ANYTHING right now with things about to kick off.....
Wish I was coming out to see you guys but I have a 6month Audit I have to handle during the middle of it and it pays a little better than working a booth out there.....
Hope you and Sunny are doing well... Will call you after you have had a week or 2 to recover from the upcoming CSI events....
Chris
Hey Joe,
Just a note, if you do revise the rules to your game, I strongly suggest numbering and dating new documents, such as "Version 1", "Version 2", and so on. Also dating each new revision. Even if you only revise the rules because things need clarifying, then version numbers and dates could end up being very important.
Fatz
Just a note, if you do revise the rules to your game, I strongly suggest numbering and dating new documents, such as "Version 1", "Version 2", and so on. Also dating each new revision. Even if you only revise the rules because things need clarifying, then version numbers and dates could end up being very important.
Fatz
Joe T
New member
Thanks for the reminder on that. I haven't been responding cuz I'm so friggin dizzy, lol it’s hilarious. Plus what Mark said, we were starting to make it look confusing even though we were just discussing. I'm thinking about ball in hand behind the line if you scratch otb as another possible option?
I agree with going to 1 point per a ball.
It makes little sense for the later balls in a rack to be worth more as they are in fact the easier balls to run after most of the clutter has been removed it is actually fairly terrible to watch someone play great running the 1-10 balls, miss and then have a person tie it up by running the remaining 5 balls.
It would also make the game more simple for the viewers and commentators both. There were times in the exhibition match when the commentators could not even keep track of the points or that balls that had been pocketed or what the score should be.
I would definately go to the simplisity of 1 point per a ball. When it comes to games to entice the public to want to watch it and perhaps play it KISS as far as the rules go, no reason to make any ball worth more then any other, in fact that type of added complexity does more harm then good.
The rules for the pocketed balls on a foul should remain the same. So after the 1st rack the total score adds up to 15, after the second the total score for both players adds to 30, next 45, next 60... and so on. Very easy to keep track of.
Last edited:
1point per ball will cut down on combo and caroms even more than just having the upper balls worth 2... In 61 I am always looking for ways to score higher count balls early in the rack if they are hanging around a pocket....
I dont't like first rack racking order.
IMO it should be like normal rotation, 1 ball first.
IMO it should be like normal rotation, 1 ball first.
As it stands right now, the difference is only 1 point per ball. I don't think people will be looking for combos and caroms based on points anyway. Agreed in "Asian Rotation" it would be worth it. But in American Rotation, not so much. People will shoot combos and caroms out of necessity only - when higher numbered balls are blocking pockets, and when it affords position or break outs. I don't think that one point would influence the decision making process much at all.
Fatz