Time to Revise 1Pocket Rules

[BeiberLvr]

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

I like the idea, but if non consecutive fouls results in a loss, then it should be at least 5 fouls.

 

[Nick B]

1. Second foul is ball in hand in the kitchen
2. Every ball over four in the kitchen gets spotted (closest ball(s) to headstring.
3. 30 second time clock for pro events when available with two 30 second extensions per rack.

Nick

 

[TheMadScientist]

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 don't mind the shot clock idea. I like faster paced one pocket. The foul rule won't work. There are many times where I have seen two accidental fouls in a row or just one after an intentional.

I have even seen it happen where Player 1 needed one ball and Player 2 followed in the hanging ball. Player 1 came back to the table with ball in kitchen and hung a bank and Player 2 had to follow in the hanging ball once again. In a two foul format you just can't win? I realize this could happen in a 3 foul format also, but I have yet to see it.

 

[westcoast]

One rule I don't like is the ability to negate making a ball in the other guys pocket by intentionally fouling at the same time. For example, in the finals of the US Open 1 pocket- Orcollo intentionally made a ball in Deuel's pocket (8th ball for Corey) and intentionally scratched in the same pocket. That should be a loss of game rather than 2 balls being spotted. In every other pool game, fouls are harshly punished- at least significantly more so than in 1 pocket. I think that fouls should be more harshly penalized in 1 pocket.

 

[JB Cases]

Play Bonus Ball instead ;-)

 

[Banks]

Play Bonus Ball instead ;-)

Then you'd just end up with two games nobody would watch.

TAR doesn't have a big problem with a shot clock. I think that would be fine. Oh, or how about charging the players table time? After all, how do you run a tournament where matches could take 30 minutes or 6 hours?

One pocket is so slow.. I updated my will to pass the current game on to my kids.

And I don't even have any kids yet.

 

[yobagua]

For you straight pool lovers are you willing to give up your 3 foul rule and give a loss of game for 2 consecutive fouls? Nothing bores me more than watching a 100 ball run in 14.1. Thats me. It takes too long and there are a few banks, kicks, caroms, etc. I respect people who do have a passion for 14.1. I respect people who love the game but please dont disrespect one pocket.
It is a game that has many options and alternatives. Difficult shots a straight pool player would never dare not to mention the strategy involved. Why circumvent it for your viewing pleasure. Like others have said...you dont like it find another game to watch..

If your are talking about commercializing it to make it acceptable to a mass market. Well thats fine. I really have nothing to say about that.
But I view it like the arts. Classical music, Ballet, and the Opera are appreciated by a select few. Its the traditions that keep it real. Commercialize it all you want for your tournament play but changing its foundations are a joke.

 

[JB Cases]

I like the idea of a chess clock. There is a two hour match limit.

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

I like the idea of a chess clock. There is a two hour match limit.

In chess, that 2 hour match limit isn't quite what it appears to be. Both players have to make a certain number of moves, say 40 moves, in two hours. So that's potentially a four hour game right there. If both players make their specified number of moves, then the game can be extended further with a secondary time control, say 30 moves in one hour. So the game could potentially go on for at least another two hours until the outcome is decided. That's why chess is such a grueling sport as games can potentially go on for well over four hours.

 

[Toncam]

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.

I think i read that Grady implemeneted this rule in one of his tournys, or tried to, i am not sure.
But its a good idea, anything after the 5th or 4th ball in the kitchen gets spotted. That would add a whole new dimension of strategy to the game.

 

[JB Cases]

In chess, that 2 hour match limit isn't quite what it appears to be. Both players have to make a certain number of moves, say 40 moves, in two hours. So that's potentially a four hour game right there. If both players make their specified number of moves, then the game can be extended further with a secondary time control, say 30 moves in one hour. So the game could potentially go on for at least another two hours until the outcome is decided. That's why chess is such a grueling sport as games can potentially go on for well over four hours.

Thanks. Then make the one pocket clock one hour with the opportunity to extend it.

Or, leave it as is and let people who love one pocket sweat it as is. Scott Frost already thinks that races to 3 are too short.

 

[the kidd]

Change not always good

 

[naji]

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 agree, but i think better yet, give each game of a match time limit, say 1/2 hr or 45 min, who has more balls wins that game, if even, then play one ball one pocket to break the tie. If this is not done, i bet the streamers will not stream anymore, 5 hrs for a match too much time and frankly boring like you said, sure it would be good after editing, or with fast forward!

 

[lfigueroa]

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.

I think spotting up balls was Grady's idea and it's not a bad one.

Regardless, I don't think you can make too many changes at once. I think the shot clock and one other mod would be a good way to start out and see how it goes.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

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.

I think it's a great game too. It just needs a tweak

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

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.

I think it's a good idea for tournaments, Stu. The pros taken intentionals with gay abandon.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

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.

I love a good defensive struggle and have written in the past that a player should find as much satisfaction from executing a well played defensive shot as an offensive one. But the way the game is being played lately, at the tournament level, it is in danger of fossilizing.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Spot every ball that ends up in the kitchen.

Dale

I think that might be too extreme. Maybe you spot a few after a certain number. or sumthin'. Spotting them all might be a bit radical.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

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.

lol. Could have used that No-Doz sweating a couple of matches at The Open.

Lou Figueroa

 

[boradriver]

I'm ok with the shot clock, but the 3 foul rule in 1p I think really changes the game to much. The intentional scratch is a huge part of the game and possible taking that away is a bad idea imo.

Now on the shot clock idea how do you purpose the foul be paid?
A shot clock foul that gives ball in hand even if it is the kitchen I think is to strong of a penalty. So I'm curious how you would like that foul to be paid.