Time to Revise 1Pocket Rules

[lfigueroa]

After what I witnessed at the US Open One pocket this year, I believe it is time to consider a couple of rule changes. I do not make these suggestions lightly, but believe that it's time to address the increasingly slow pace of the game, given current styles of play.

And so I would like to suggest two changes:

First, that a shot clock, similar to a chess clock, be utilized at major events. You come back to the player's chairs and stop your clock and start your opponent's. I do not believe players should be allotted a finite amount of time to play a game or match. However, I do believe that 30-45 seconds is plenty of time for a shot, with a 30-45 second extension, once a game, being allowed.

Second, I think it's time to get rid of or modify the three foul rule. In too many matches players are accumulating too many coins in front of their pockets.

It's boring. Even for a dyed-in-the wool 1pocket players.

Lets keep things moving. I think the "three foul rule" needs to be changed to a "two foul rule." Two consecutive fouls and it's loss of game.

What say you?

Lou Figueroa

 

[3andstop]

I think your on the right track with both ideas, I also like spotting the ball nearest the headstring after the 5th ball behind the string. I think this would speed the game up the most.

 

[CantEverWin]

Why not just take 6 balls off the table. Make them shoot the balls in rotation. Let the winner be whoever makes the last ball, and let them shoot in any pocket they want?
Oh wait???


I don't really get people complaining about the game the way it's played. It's a thinking, finesse, stratagy game. Why do people want to give others less time to think? I have a feeling that people believe that with a 45 second shot clock people would play the same shot any way. Just faster. I don't really think that's true.

The 8 ball match was played at a really slow pace, and it was still exciting. Total match times are not as long just because of the game itself, but the vast majority of players on the stream were not shooting anywhere close to 30-45 seconds. Especially after the break.

 

[sjm]

I think one pocket's biggest issue is the almost unwatchable up table game. Some disincentive needs to be devised for employment of this tactic. Why must every rack in which one player opens up a big lead take a year and a day?

The up table game often lasts over half an hour, sometimes without a ball being pocketed by either player for an eternity.

I equate a 6-0 rack in which the leader employs up table tactics to ensure victory with a marathon being run for 25 miles and then being walked on tiptoes for the last portion.

Finally, I like the two foul loss of game idea.

 

[Put_upor_shutup]

Leave it be...its just fine where its at.

 

[Put_upor_shutup]

I think one pocket's biggest issue is the almost unwatchable up table game. Some disincentive needs to be devised for employment of this tactic. Why must every rack in which one player opens up a big lead take a year and a day?

The up table game often lasts over half an hour, sometimes without a ball being pocketed by either player for an eternity.

I equate a 6-0 rack in which the leader employs up table tactics to ensure victory with a marathon being run for 25 miles and then being walked on tiptoes for the last portion.

Finally, I like the two foul loss of game idea.

So u would like to eliminate the most challenging and toughest part of the game???

 

[CantEverWin]

I don't understand why people only seem to find enjoyment when "balls are going in pockets" and "racks are being run." I seem to be a bit different but that's when the games usually get boring. (Not always) if balls going in the hole is what everyone would like to see we should go back to 7 ball. Or imagine how fun 3 ball with BIH after the break would be.

 

[Jdale]

After what I witnessed at the US Open One pocket this year, I believe it is time to consider a couple of rule changes. I do not make these suggestions lightly, but believe that it's time to address the increasingly slow pace of the game, given current styles of play.

And so I would like to suggest two changes:

First, that a shot clock, similar to a chess clock, be utilized at major events. You come back to the player's chairs and stop your clock and start your opponent's. I do not believe players should be allotted a finite amount of time to play a game or match. However, I do believe that 30-45 seconds is plenty of time for a shot, with a 30-45 second extension, once a game, being allowed.

Second, I think it's time to get rid of or modify the three foul rule. In too many matches players are accumulating too many coins in front of their pockets.

It's boring. Even for a dyed-in-the wool 1pocket players.

Lets keep things moving. I think the "three foul rule" needs to be changed to a "two foul rule." Two consecutive fouls and it's loss of game.

What say you?

Lou Figueroa

Spot every ball that ends up in the kitchen.

Dale

 

[sjm]

So u would like to eliminate the most challenging and toughest part of the game???

Not entirely, but a rule change I might like is that when all balls are in the kitchen, one of them should be spotted. That way, there is always a ball in play.

In the absence of something like that, I think a rule mandating the distribution of No-Doz to all onlookers might be in order when every ball is in the kitchen.

 

[Fast Lenny]

After what I witnessed at the US Open One pocket this year, I believe it is time to consider a couple of rule changes. I do not make these suggestions lightly, but believe that it's time to address the increasingly slow pace of the game, given current styles of play.

And so I would like to suggest two changes:

First, that a shot clock, similar to a chess clock, be utilized at major events. You come back to the player's chairs and stop your clock and start your opponent's. I do not believe players should be allotted a finite amount of time to play a game or match. However, I do believe that 30-45 seconds is plenty of time for a shot, with a 30-45 second extension, once a game, being allowed.

Second, I think it's time to get rid of or modify the three foul rule. In too many matches players are accumulating too many coins in front of their pockets.

It's boring. Even for a dyed-in-the wool 1pocket players.

Lets keep things moving. I think the "three foul rule" needs to be changed to a "two foul rule." Two consecutive fouls and it's loss of game.

What say you?

Lou Figueroa

I like the time clock idea and have been saying it for awhile also, it would work well for this game. I think three fouls is a good rule but there should be a limit to how many total fouls in a game you can have where you owe balls, loss of game if you owe 5 or 6 balls would be a good idea maybe.

 

[macguy]

After what I witnessed at the US Open One pocket this year, I believe it is time to consider a couple of rule changes. I do not make these suggestions lightly, but believe that it's time to address the increasingly slow pace of the game, given current styles of play.

And so I would like to suggest two changes:

First, that a shot clock, similar to a chess clock, be utilized at major events. You come back to the player's chairs and stop your clock and start your opponent's. I do not believe players should be allotted a finite amount of time to play a game or match. However, I do believe that 30-45 seconds is plenty of time for a shot, with a 30-45 second extension, once a game, being allowed.

Second, I think it's time to get rid of or modify the three foul rule. In too many matches players are accumulating too many coins in front of their pockets.

It's boring. Even for a dyed-in-the wool 1pocket players.

Lets keep things moving. I think the "three foul rule" needs to be changed to a "two foul rule." Two consecutive fouls and it's loss of game.

What say you?

Lou Figueroa

The game was never considered to be a spectator game. It requires a fair knowledge of the game to start with to even watch it. If you want to speed it up use 9 balls or 5 or 3 but don't change the original concept. I used to play a guy one pocket using only 3 balls and sometimes just 1 ball.

It was good end of game practice. Would probably make a good spectator game using fewer balls. If I was promoting I would try it, maybe as a co-tournament along with the main tournament. I think people and players would like it.

 

[book collector]

I agree that some people take wayyy too much time.
Have a time limit and whoever has the most balls wins.
If you have the same it's a tie.
You can take as long as you want on any shot but your overall clock is running.
2 fouls sounds ok, I'd have to play some to really know .
5 in the kitchen 1 spots , I like that idea , it seems to work well in tournaments I have seen.
If you start changing too many things though, you run the risk of taking away the reason for the game to begin with.
When played a certain way, it is a game where the best shooter does not have to win.
I prefer the squeeze type of game, not to the extent Nick Varner played it though.
But I also like to watch someone like Raphael Martinez fire at his hole and to me the contrast is what makes the game so much fun.
If you force everyone to shoot at the hole every time, theres no sense playing.
Why not just take all thinking out of pool, lets make a set of shots like artistic billiards and everyone shoots the same set of shots .
Whoever makes all the shots with the least misses , wins.
It's as fast as it is going to get and everyone gets an equal chance.
I also did not like the venues where they called a time out.
It disrupts the whole rythm of the game for me.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Have a time limit and whoever has the most balls wins.
If you have the same it's a tie.
You can take as long as you want on any shot but your overall clock is running.

I don't like this idea. Without having some sort of shot clock in conjunction with the time limit, this can easily be abused.

 

[gregcantrall]

I would like to see speed one pocket.

I heard of a tournament where Cecil Tugwell and Cole Dickson played a race to 4 and the breaker ran out in his second inning every game. 7 games in 35 minutes.

I would like a speed one pocket tournament with the chess clock. Give each player 5 minutes. When the first clock hits 0 the other gets to shoot till he is out of time too.

Make all fouls ball in hand.

 

[Tramp Steamer]

Leave it be...its just fine where its at.

I share this opinion, in spades.
While your waiting for you're time at the table, read a book. Catch up on some Facebook shit. Grab a snack. :smile:

 

[King T]

This is a tuff one???

I play the game and Love the game..., that being said I do think it would help all if the game had a little more pace, just a little.

The Chess clock I like if a 5min per shot rule is put in place..., I would also like to see a 3-4 foul ball rule after that, ball in hand behind the string!!

 

[book collector]

I don't like this idea. Without having some sort of shot clock in conjunction with the time limit, this can easily be abused.

Well I guess someone could stall around if they were way ahead but I don't see what advantage it would be. How about 5 minute limit any shot 1 hour total game.

 

[spanky79]

After what I witnessed at the US Open One pocket this year, I believe it is time to consider a couple of rule changes. I do not make these suggestions lightly, but believe that it's time to address the increasingly slow pace of the game, given current styles of play.

And so I would like to suggest two changes:

First, that a shot clock, similar to a chess clock, be utilized at major events. You come back to the player's chairs and stop your clock and start your opponent's. I do not believe players should be allotted a finite amount of time to play a game or match. However, I do believe that 30-45 seconds is plenty of time for a shot, with a 30-45 second extension, once a game, being allowed.

Second, I think it's time to get rid of or modify the three foul rule. In too many matches players are accumulating too many coins in front of their pockets.

It's boring. Even for a dyed-in-the wool 1pocket players.

Lets keep things moving. I think the "three foul rule" needs to be changed to a "two foul rule." Two consecutive fouls and it's loss of game.

What say you?

Lou Figueroa

you should add a couple.

1. you can not get the cue ball cleaned when the spotting of the ball may change the shot. In fact you should not be able to clean the cue ball unless it goes in the pocket.

2. You can not have a ball rotated for any reason. Shoot the damn shot.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Another way to handle the up-table game is to play that when all the balls (at least four?) are up-table, the score is noted and a full rack is started from a break shot. The score might be 6-3 and then with the new full rack the "spot" would be A needs 2 and B needs 5.

If you just spot one from the kitchen, make it the one closest to the head rail.

I have no problem with playing one pocket one-on-one with the current rules, but there is a large problem with tournaments.

 

[wincardona]

I don't agree with altering the play of the game, one pocket is the most interesting game in the world, all games included. As far as the three foul rule goes, yes that could be modified. I have a suggestion on a rule change that would not only speed up the game, it would also apply more pressure to the game which would possibly make the game more exciting and interesting. I propose it's an automatic loss of game whenever a player accumulates three fouls, regardless of when they happen. This rule will challenge strategy, particularly in the 'intentional fouling' part of the game. It wouldn't necessarily omit the intentional foul but it would certainly put a higher price on choosing that option.Also there will be more suspense whenever either player is on two fouls...talk about heart break talk about tough losses:angry: However, the good thing is, it can go either way.

Bill Incardona