What kind of a rule is in play here???

Maniac

Maniac

2manyQ's
Silver Member
YouTube. 2017 China Open 9-ball tournament. Nick van den Berg vs Jayson Shaw. Race to 11, alternate breaks. Game 17, Van den Berg up two games 9-7. makes a ball on the break and gives up the table to Shaw.

Two games later, Van den Berg breaking again, he makes another ball and gives up the table to Shaw again. Eventually, Van den Berg loses 11-10.

WTH? Am I missing some kind of a weird rule here in this tournament?

Can someone please explain this craziness?

Maniac
 
This would probably be the relevant section:

“(1) On the break shot, a minimum of three object balls must either be pocketed, or touch the head string line, or a combination of both. For example, if one object ball is pocketed, then at least two object balls must touch the head string line; or if two object balls are pocketed, then at least one object ball must touch the head string line.”


Respectfully, Matt
(I don’t take myself too seriously. I hope you can return the favor.)
 
MattPoland said:
This would probably be the relevant section:

“(1) On the break shot, a minimum of three object balls must either be pocketed, or touch the head string line, or a combination of both. For example, if one object ball is pocketed, then at least two object balls must touch the head string line; or if two object balls are pocketed, then at least one object ball must touch the head string line.”


Respectfully, Matt
(I don’t take myself too seriously. I hope you can return the favor.)
Click to expand...

Okay...gotcha.

I never did like this rule. A ball made is a ball made, especially when they are obviously NOT soft-breaking. Breaking innovations being punished with that rule.

That said...I'm not a huge fan of soft-breaking when a template is being used.

Maniac
 
Tough topic. 3 point rule vs. soft breaking vs. clocking break speeds vs. rack manipulation vs. slug racks vs. templates vs. triangle racks vs. you rack vs. opponent racks vs. ref racks vs. pattern racks vs. two in back vs. break from the box vs. nine on the spot.

I think there’s no solution so far that’s an easy win without other negative trade offs. I’m glad I don’t make those decisions.


Respectfully, Matt
(I don’t take myself too seriously. I hope you can return the favor.)
 
Confusing as hell isn't it, when you don't know what's going on :grin:? I ran into that several times myself, before figuring it out. Real head scratcher!
 
MattPoland said:
Tough topic. 3 point rule vs. soft breaking vs. clocking break speeds vs. rack manipulation vs. slug racks vs. templates vs. triangle racks vs. you rack vs. opponent racks vs. ref racks vs. pattern racks vs. two in back vs. break from the box vs. nine on the spot.

I think there’s no solution so far that’s an easy win without other negative trade offs. I’m glad I don’t make those decisions.


Respectfully, Matt
(I don’t take myself too seriously. I hope you can return the favor.)
Click to expand...

If somebody (smarter than me) would develop something similar to a bowling pin setter for pool they would make a lot of money.
 
alstl said:
If somebody (smarter than me) would develop something similar to a bowling pin setter for pool they would make a lot of money.
Click to expand...

You are kind of describing the Sardo Rack....which I also disliked.

Maniac
 
chadtrent said:
I feel the same way. We had one and sometimes it worked great. Sometimes it would never work. Never could figure out why.
Click to expand...


My assumption is that all tables naturally settle divots in the clothe under the rack. Trained tables rely on consistent divots. Templates ignore the divots. Triangles try to find the divots. Sardos keep making new divots. If you make new divots too often then the balls will never want to settle together.


Respectfully, Matt
(I don’t take myself too seriously. I hope you can return the favor.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top