Time to Revise 1Pocket Rules

[lfigueroa]

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.

wow, what a great idea about total fouls, Lenny. I don't know about 5 or 6, but maybe 4...

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

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.

In it's current tournament form, the game is ossifying. And I think *for tournament play* some changes need to happen. And if it was OK for guys like Grady to look for ways to speed it up the game a bit, the idea can't be all bad.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

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.

bc, the problem with the time limit is that guys will start to game the clock. In fact, I had a match several years ago at The Open up in Kalamazoo where we were put on the clock and it totally affected how to play the game.

And I agree with you about Nick and Rafael. I watched a couple of RMs games and he is nuts. Twice he didn't hesitate to put the butt of his cue straight up in the air, masse down on the ball to send an OB flying while the CB stuttered forward a bit and then drew back to safety. Nobody else was shooting dem kinda shots.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

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!!

Exactly. It just needs a little more pace or something to keep things from dragging on forever.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

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.

If you get a couple balls up you just go into total stall. Take your time every shot and never even look at your hole.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

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.

lol.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

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.

Right, it's the tournament version that has a problem.

Bob, have you played with the rules you describe? Other than moving it along, how else does it affect play?

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

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

Doctor, that is a *very* interesting idea -- three total fouls and it's loss of game.

Lou Figueroa
I like it

 

[lfigueroa]

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

Nick, not a bad idea on the second foul. Have you played this way and if so how did it affect play?

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

This would speed up the game and lower it's quality 5 times as much as it was sped up. Bad idea. If you want to watch a faster game watch a different kind of game.

No, I like 1pocket. I just don't want to see the tournament version completely die out.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

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.

What about Billy's idea -- any three fouls in a game and you lose.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

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.

well, I don't agree with that one. Following a ball in is OK by me.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

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.

No, I'm not talking about commercializing it for the masses. Just trying to make it move along enough that it doesn't put one pocket aficionados, like Stu and me, to sleep at a prestigious event like The US Open.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

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.

I'm not sure either, but I think Grady did run an event this way.

And so for the purists I'd say again that if Grady was willing to consider speeding up the game a bit, the concept should not be discount out-of-hand by the rest of us.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

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!

But, najji, you just can't do a set time for a game or guys will game that it it would reward an uber-conservative style of play.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

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.

I dan't know. If BIH is too strong, any suggestions?

Lou Figueroa

 

[1pocket]

There is no need to change the overall rules for one pocket -- they are fine as they are. However tournament directors do need some tools to enforce no slow play as needed. That did not happen in Vegas -- they let Corey drag a couple of matches way down. It is not like the whole tournament had an issue at all.

 

[Nick B]

Nick, not a bad idea on the second foul. Have you played this way and if so how did it affect play?

Lou Figueroa

No but BIH would be a big deterrent (usually from taking the second foul). Now guys are forced to kick hit and grab a rail instead of standard miss on the bottom side of soft two rail kick response from the stack. This will force more offensive safeties and push the pace.

Now that I think about it if you take intentional foul I'm less likely from simply fouling back and leaving you where you don't like it (behind the stack etc).

Nick

 

[Nick B]

There is no need to change the overall rules for one pocket -- they are fine as they are. However tournament directors do need some tools to enforce no slow play as needed. That did not happen in Vegas -- they let Corey drag a couple of matches way down. It is not like the whole tournament had an issue at all.

The problem is almost everyone is willing to play the score and push the game up table. I'm up 6-2 and below the stack. What do I do? Push them up. What do you do? Respond in kind. Now a 15min game is a 60min bumpfest because at this point it has to be. Now the whole tourney is held hostage to our five hour match.

If you and I are playing one on one...no problem but in a tournament it's death bye Bunga Bunga.

Nick

 

[spanky79]

Right, it's the tournament version that has a problem.

Bob, have you played with the rules you describe? Other than moving it along, how else does it affect play?

Lou Figueroa

I hate this rule, It changes the game way to much. It give the advantage to the shooter. The guy that can most sends them up table just to have the brought back with no skill involved. I call BS