Isn't it unfair that lag winner breaks last rack when hill hill in alternate break?

spartan

spartan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Have seen a number of close matches with alternate break where when it is hill hill and the lag winner breaks final rack and runs out. The other guy does not get a chance. That is like deciding winner by flip of coin.
Shouldn't the rule that lag winner breaks final rack when it is hill hill be changed? Like tennis where winner has to win at least 2 but maybe up to a maximum in order that the match does not take forever. Or like in one tourney I think it is International Challenge of champions where the players lag again for the final rack. Actually lagging is like flip of coin. Maybe better way to decide breaker is position some long balls to pot, some balls to kick or bang and whoever does better will break.. :grin:
 
Assuming both players ran out on their break in every game...no.
 
Losers will complain about anything. Perhaps practicing the lag will become important. How many chances should the soon to be losing player get to do something different so they don't have to lose.

Maybe pros should just play sets against the ghost to 21 and then let the one with the highest number of wins take the tournament without actually playing anyone.
 
spartan said:
Have seen a number of close matches with alternate break where when it is hill hill and the lag winner breaks final rack and runs out. The other guy does not get a chance. That is like deciding winner by flip of coin.
Shouldn't the rule that lag winner breaks final rack when it is hill hill be changed? Like tennis where winner has to win at least 2 but maybe up to a maximum in order that the match does not take forever. Or like in one tourney I think it is International Challenge of champions where the players lag again for the final rack. Actually lagging is like flip of coin. Maybe better way to decide breaker is position some long balls to pot, some balls to kick or bang and whoever does better will break.. :grin:
Click to expand...

The entire game of 9 ball is nothing more than an elaborate coin toss.
 
I think "unfair" is a bit harsh as it is determined by the players (by lagging). Aside from the personal psychological advantage of breaking first or second (depends on the player and opponent - but it's trivial) in an alternate break format, it's the only advantage gained by winning the lag. Having said that, I think it's a bad rule. Win by 2 is better and is in keeping with the nature of alternate break. Or just introduce a rule that alternate break matches cannot be won on break and run - play on until it isn't......would work just fine. In tournaments the rules are always fair if they are the same for both players but they should also be "pure".

Alternate breaks>steal the break (win 2 in row) it goes to winner breaks>match can't be won until the break is stolen (so hill-hill with no stolen break means win by 2)>if it goes to second hill-hill (we gonna run out of time we gotta have a decider) then it's whoever has the break but break and run can't win it.

Pretty simple. Probably looks complicated to some though. I assume the OP means tournaments and not bar boxes, beer and jerks arguing about rules that neither of them understand.
 
great answer

dr9ball said:
Losers will complain about anything. Perhaps practicing the lag will become important. How many chances should the soon to be losing player get to do something different so they don't have to lose.

Maybe pros should just play sets against the ghost to 21 and then let the one with the highest number of wins take the tournament without actually playing anyone.
Click to expand...

The first paragraph is golden
 
spartan said:
Have seen a number of close matches with alternate break where when it is hill hill and the lag winner breaks final rack and runs out. The other guy does not get a chance. That is like deciding winner by flip of coin.
Shouldn't the rule that lag winner breaks final rack when it is hill hill be changed? Like tennis where winner has to win at least 2 but maybe up to a maximum in order that the match does not take forever. Or like in one tourney I think it is International Challenge of champions where the players lag again for the final rack. Actually lagging is like flip of coin. Maybe better way to decide breaker is position some long balls to pot, some balls to kick or bang and whoever does better will break.. :grin:
Click to expand...

The lag is not a flip of the coin, it takes skill to lag. COC do a lag because the final game is a tie breaker if everything else is tied up. It's not actually part of the last set. Also it's not a "rule" that the lag winner breaks on hill-hill, it's just how it works out in an odd number of games played going back and forth with alternating break. If the race was to 10, the lag loser would break on the hill hill game.

Why do you think the lag is same as a coin toss? One you have no control over if done properly, the other is a regular shot with speed control.
 
Last edited:
Pat Fleming would probably say that breaking at hill/hill is a disadvantage. What would you propose - they should play a separate race to 3 to see who gets the last snap?

Aaron
 
Sorry, but the OP makes absolutely no sense here. At least a lag has some sort of skill involved, where a coin toss is random. How else would you decide who breaks the final rack? You can't play til a 2 game advantage at that point, it could go back and forth all night. They won the lag...therefore the advantage should go to him or her, at that point. They 'earned' it. The OP is so odd, it tested my resolve not to be sarcastic here.
 
Nullus said:
Sorry, but the OP makes absolutely no sense here.
Click to expand...

The OP makes a lot of sense.

Nullus said:
At least a lag has some sort of skill involved, where a coin toss is random.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Nullus said:
How else would you decide who breaks the final rack? You can't play til a 2 game advantage at that point, it could go back and forth all night. They won the lag...therefore the advantage should go to him or her, at that point.
Click to expand...

You can play until a 2 game advantage. It's been done and it works.

Nullus said:
They 'earned' it.
Click to expand...

Yes they did.

Nullus said:
The OP is so odd
Click to expand...

There is nothing remotely odd about the OP. Do you deem anything you disagree with to be odd?

Nullus said:
it tested my resolve not to be sarcastic here
Click to expand...

Resolve? We are talking about who breaks last rack of an alternate break race. Too many keyboard warriors on this thread - how about a discussion about the merits of the OP? Whether you agree or not.
 
Have seen a number of close matches with alternate break
where when it is hill hill and the lag winner breaks final rack and runs out.
The other guy does not get a chance.
Click to expand...

The other guy got his chance when they played the rest of the race.

Why put the player through a test of skill to figure out if he gets to break the final rack?
He's already been through two tests of skill... the opening lag, and the rest of the race.
If he lost both of those tests of skill, it's his own damn fault the other guy gets
a slight edge going into the final rack (and I do mean slight).

People are too hung up on "fair" sometimes.
If you want to make the game fair, just ban running out entirely.
Why should I lose when I didn't do anything wrong? That's unfaaaaaiiirrrr.
 
CreeDo said:
... the opening lag, and the rest of the race.
If he lost both of those tests of skill, it's his own damn fault
Click to expand...

I think he will have not lost the rest of the race. Methinks it will be tied/drawn/equal/the same. I have no problem with the status quo but defending it wrongly is inexcusable.Especially when you know your stuff.
 
Last edited:
Swighey said:
The OP makes a lot of sense.



Yes.



You can play until a 2 game advantage. It's been done and it works.



Yes they did.



There is nothing remotely odd about the OP. Do you deem anything you disagree with to be odd?



Resolve? We are talking about who breaks last rack of an alternate break race. Too many keyboard warriors on this thread - how about a discussion about the merits of the OP? Whether you agree or not.
Click to expand...

Who are you, his big brother standing up for him? Unless you're whining about losing the lag to someone who was better than you at it, this original post makes no sense. Why should the person who lost the lag have an even chance at the final rack. He LOST the lag. As for the win by 2, if it's a tournament format, you could go on all night waiting for a 2 game advantage in a set where it's already hill-hill and that holds everyone else and their matches up. Bottom line is when you win the lag, you have earned the right to break the final game in an even race hill-hill match. You know going in what the race is, no need for a 2 game spot to win. Lag better or play better and you won't be on here whining about who breaks the final rack.
 
Swighey said:
I think he will have not lost the rest of the race. Methinks it will be tied/drawn/equal/the same. I have no problem with the status quo but defending it by wrongly is inexcusable.Especially when you know your stuff.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's tied/drawn/equal/the same...all except for that loss of the lag...remember? There was no tied, etc there. The guy that won it, won it. Who's trolling who here Swighey? The guy asked for opinions and folks are giving them and you're in here blasting everyone who took the time to respond. If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top