That nearly 2 hour game was totally unbearable. There should be something to prevent such a thing from occurring in a tournament
Time to Revise 1Pocket Rules
- Thread starter lfigueroa
- Start date
That nearly 2 hour game was totally unbearable. There should be something to prevent such a thing from occurring in a tournament
Kiss
Naji, while your idea and mine have similar effects (reducing the number of balls needed by the non-fouling player), my idea is simply simpler, in that you don't have to try to keep track of your opponents number of fouls. Simply transferring balls from the fouler to the foulee is a fool-proof way to keep score, and when the fouler has no balls to transfer, a coin on the table is in keeping with the way fouls are marked today, we simply need to change the meaning of the coin from "owing one" to "you need to transfer one".
I really think this change would do the trick without destroying the game, and if it is thought that perhaps we would wish to modify this idea a bit, we could always say that once your opponent needs only one ball to win, no transfer can be made, so that a foul then would result only in the fouler spotting a ball or owing a ball.:thumbup: This modification would preclude a player winning the game when he is not at the table because his opponent fouled.
Naji, while your idea and mine have similar effects (reducing the number of balls needed by the non-fouling player), my idea is simply simpler, in that you don't have to try to keep track of your opponents number of fouls. Simply transferring balls from the fouler to the foulee is a fool-proof way to keep score, and when the fouler has no balls to transfer, a coin on the table is in keeping with the way fouls are marked today, we simply need to change the meaning of the coin from "owing one" to "you need to transfer one".
I really think this change would do the trick without destroying the game, and if it is thought that perhaps we would wish to modify this idea a bit, we could always say that once your opponent needs only one ball to win, no transfer can be made, so that a foul then would result only in the fouler spotting a ball or owing a ball.:thumbup: This modification would preclude a player winning the game when he is not at the table because his opponent fouled.
victhestick
Registered
Shot clock - Appropriate time limit
Extensions - One or two or ?
If you go over the time it costs you a ball per extension. (If the situation is really that bad you can think about it but it will cost you balls.
Three more fouls than your opponent (not counting scratches) - ball in hand in the kitchen (there must be a playable ball).
Ball on the break ends your turn.
I would really like to see the pros play 12 to 12. No more eight and out.
Extensions - One or two or ?
If you go over the time it costs you a ball per extension. (If the situation is really that bad you can think about it but it will cost you balls.
Three more fouls than your opponent (not counting scratches) - ball in hand in the kitchen (there must be a playable ball).
Ball on the break ends your turn.
I would really like to see the pros play 12 to 12. No more eight and out.
Im curious. Why would you stay if it was unbearable? When I go to a film and it is irritating I just leave.
Last edited:
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, in fact I kinda like it. I just don't think you could sell the idea.
Lou Figueroa
the derby city classic has been going on for 15 years with no problems finishing on time.........................................................................................why the urge to make a texas express version of one pocket???
No one is talking TE.
My motivation for bringing this up is that what I am seeing in the game, having played in events regularly for 15 years, is that the style of play is evolving and the games are starting to stretch out more and more. To keep the game healthy, particularly at tournaments and for spectators at those events, I believe the game needs a tweak or two to keep it entertaining, while maintaining the integrity of the game.
Lou Figueroa
Not sure I like your idea because a player could refuse to make a ball in his hall and hang the game plus my point is to lessen as much as possible balls needed
I don't understand. You can't reduce the number of balls needed more than by transferring a ball from the fouler to the foulee (fouler loses a ball while foulee gains a ball).
Please explain what u mean by "a player could refuse to make a ball in his hole and hang the game"? Why would anybody do that?
Keeping score by "balls in your pocket" as is done currently, is invaluable for simplicity. Trying to keep track of how many fouls your opponent has made and how many balls you now need with coins us too complicated and unworkable and will only lead to disputes I believe.
Saw this one used in a overly long league match:
Past a certain time, each ball counts double.
Maybe the frontrunner will take a risk if they can close out a game from 6-0.
Maybe the other guy will get aggressive if he sees 4 workable shots that start with a challenging bank.
Past a certain time, each ball counts double.
Maybe the frontrunner will take a risk if they can close out a game from 6-0.
Maybe the other guy will get aggressive if he sees 4 workable shots that start with a challenging bank.
that's what I did after watching about 45 minutes of that game. They were basically just tapping balls around for an hour. Yes, I know there are subtle intracacies in such moves, but not enough for me to keep watching. Other games were faster and more interesting
Everybody was dead tired by the time it was over. Both players had probably played a ten ball match or two before the one pocket finals because they were carried over a day because of the power outage.
Two of the best players in the world, both wanting the title, reverted to a very conservative game most of the time. Both Dennis and Corey are not your conventional one pocket players, but their pool skills are such that they did show they could win against the best.
I was a commentator along with Jay Helfert and Bobby LeBlanc and the match and length of time between shots wore us out, and we are diehard one pocket fans.
I believe the match could have gone either way and a couple of bad rolls and questionable shots by Corey cost him dearly at the end.
Last edited:
We have short rack banks...might as well have short rack one pocket. I think racking 10 balls would be better than 9,however. When we go to my buddys house,I make em play short rack one hole so everyone gets to play more games.It's really fun too. Try it you might like it:thumbup: John B.
Say player a needs 1 ball to win and player b has to pay one for player a because he fouled but doesnot have any ball so game will go on and player b will start kicking balls away from his hole until maybe player a win or foul , also possible player b makes the ball for player a , as you can see it changes the game
Last edited:
Agree but with game time limit and then it goes to one ball one hole decider
Great for a home game but surely you are not considering any one pocket championships should be determined by this kind of game. Kinda reminds me of when we were kids and played 6 ball and then every one became adults and started running out and it became boring.
See this is the dividing line. Lou is asking for "tweaks" to the game. That I can understand. He is trying to improve the tournament experience. But when some protest to the boredom of the game I think its not the games fault but the person viewing.
When I watch NASCAR races after the first 5 laps Im done. I just want to get to the checkered flag. Now I know theres a whole culture around auto racing but for me its a big bore.I mean come on, running around in circles for hours? So I blame myself as to not being intelligent enough to understand the sport and the people who love it passionately so. Thousands of people cant be wrong.
So goes with Rugby, Cricket, and Badmington.
If One pocket bores anyone or thinks it is like watching paint dry. Then either learn something about the game and culture or don't watch it.
Nothing personal. I just think we have to separate those who love the game and want some improvement and those who wish one pocket was 9 ball.
Last edited:
Can you guess what I think of short rack banks in a championship bankpool tournament? John B.
If in fact some type of rule change is being considered to quicken 1pkt games, I for one don't think racking 10 balls and playing a shorter game is less intrusive to the integrity of the game as spotting any balls over 5 in the kitchen.
A full rack offers more area for safety play, it offers more rack combinations for shots, and it is very much a core part of 1 pkt. Making the rack smaller changes the game, so much that it can affect staying sharp for regular rack 1pkt.
On the other hand, spotting balls after 5 does little to alter the game's integrity since there is still plenty of long rail straight back banking and sending balls up table.
This option IMO changes the game even less than a shot clock.
A full rack offers more area for safety play, it offers more rack combinations for shots, and it is very much a core part of 1 pkt. Making the rack smaller changes the game, so much that it can affect staying sharp for regular rack 1pkt.
On the other hand, spotting balls after 5 does little to alter the game's integrity since there is still plenty of long rail straight back banking and sending balls up table.
This option IMO changes the game even less than a shot clock.