True, but the traditional rule has not yet been changed. We need "an outline of the rack" to go by, even if there is no rack.
SVB to Kick Off High Run Attempts
- Thread starter lfigueroa
- Start date
You missed my question. I want your opinion of whether this is a feasible rule change. We are always looking at the rules and modifications. This has less to do with the Straight Pool Challenge and more to do with the rules going forward.
Yes sir you are correct. LARGE.....
The usual racks guarantee that a "non-interfering" ball will be a playable break ball. By Freddie's suggestion, there are "non-interfering" balls close to the rack that are unplayable.
Oh I know that particular circumstance all too well... I use a template when I'm whacking at 14.1. Really do need to pay close attention to those potential break balls tight to the racking area.
Oh; I didn't know you were asking me whether I think that would be a feasible rule change. My initial reaction is yes. It removes all issues about the variety of racking tools. Sometimes it would help the player with a break shot, sometimes it would hurt, depending on the location of the 15th ball. And that's OK. Play so you'll have a break shot, or play safe.
One possible concern I would have is being able to know whether the 15th ball would actually be "in" or "out" (touching a racked ball) before they are actually racked. Today, prior to the end of the rack, we can use the outline of the rack drawn on the table, if it has been drawn, or we place the rack on the table (or hold it up above the ball(s)) to see. With the Perma-Rack you can actually put a single object ball in place to see if it will be touching the 15th ball, but if you are using a triangle to rack, you don't know exactly where the edge of the ball will be. In other words, suppose you are using a normal triangle, have run 11 balls in the current rack, and want to know whether one of the other 4 is "in the rack." Is there a quick and easy way to tell?
Last edited:
The rules require a triangle to be outlined even when you are using a non-triangle racking method. In/out is determined by the outline.
oh ok... which triangle manufacturer/model should be used...?
Well, one that is not too big and not too small, of course.
Any player who has had to deal with big honking Diamond rack welcomes something like a template.
Lou Figueroa
Last edited:
I think as equipment evolves, so can rules to take advantage of any new changes brought about by the equipment. The modern racks are used universally now in all pocket billiard games. If they allow more possible break ball locations, whether realistically playable or not, then I'm for allowing them. I don't see why to limit them based on the old technology of a thick wooden rack. That's my opinion, anyway
Another way to look at it is it is both a benefit and a disadvantage. Bob mentioned a ball super close to the rack with a template rack wouldn't be realistically playable anyway. Well with the template model, this ball would not be spotted, so you'd have to bump it to a better spot. So in this regard it would make the game harder.
Another way to look at it is it is both a benefit and a disadvantage. Bob mentioned a ball super close to the rack with a template rack wouldn't be realistically playable anyway. Well with the template model, this ball would not be spotted, so you'd have to bump it to a better spot. So in this regard it would make the game harder.
The BCA has shown great latitude in what is permissible -- I suspect there would be no defensible issue.
Lou Figueroa
Templates, whether they matter for interfering balls are not, are now common practice.
Lou Figueroa
Examples?
Well, they OK'd JS' run for starters.
So I'd say whatever was good for him, in terms of table specs, is good as a start. Beyond that, I have heard of no squawks about racking templates in other pool disciplines, so why not 14.1?
Lou Figueroa
of course...lol
For the record. I do 'mock rack' with my wooden triangle when balls are close enough to merit the effort. Not sure if it's big enough or too small, however I'm certain it adheres to the rules.
Let's assume racking templates are deemed ok in 14.1. We still have the question of when to send the 15th ball to the head spot. Do we want an "interference" area around the balls, or just the balls? From a practical viewpoint, wouldn't it have to be just the balls?
But I still say this is for the future, after rules are reviewed and possibly changed. Today, we need "an outline of the rack" around the balls.
Nearly any will work. I suggest the Delta-13 as the most accurate if you're actually going to use it to rack.