If we were using the balls to determine "in" or "out," wouldn't it be appropriate to say the 15th ball is "in" (i.e. move it) if it would touch a ball on the foot spot.
SVB to Kick Off High Run Attempts
- Thread starter lfigueroa
- Start date
That's my point. It can be inside your line without touching a racked ball. So it should be left in place, whereas your line would say it is over the line, so move it to the head spot.
I don't think so, but you will have to ask Freddie since this new "no outline, all that fits" idea is his proposal. The new rack will not have a ball on the foot spot, so a break ball partly occupying the foot spot is not preventing you from racking the 14 balls.
I suppose another question that comes up more often is whether a ball that has been spotted interferes with the rack under Freddie's proposal.
You can't have the 15th ball inside of the space the object balls. That traced out line represents a boarder of in, or out of the rack. At no time can the 15th ball occupy the same space as the object balls. If it crosses the line, it gets racked with the rest of the balls, thats the rules.
You mean it gets moved to the head spot (or, rarely, the center spot).
There is a reason why I never post in this forum anymore and it’s the nit picking, the pocket size, the cloth, the rails, the tips, the LD Shafts, the balls, polished balls, the wrap that SVB has with unicorn hair and everything else you have a slight problem with.
It truly is pathetic that our industry has come down to this. WHO GIVES A SHI@!!!
It’s an exhibition right? That is the main point. I honestly don’t care about anything else (the light BS arguments you have on here) that goes against the whole point of the goal of this!!! Like honestly it’s poisonous and detrimental.
Why can’t we just talk about the actual event and the promotion of pool through this event without nit picking every damn thing this is to pool!!!
Like seriously…. Are you all that mental?!?!
Can’t you just talk about the play of the players and their guts to do their best?
It truly is pathetic that our industry has come down to this. WHO GIVES A SHI@!!!
It’s an exhibition right? That is the main point. I honestly don’t care about anything else (the light BS arguments you have on here) that goes against the whole point of the goal of this!!! Like honestly it’s poisonous and detrimental.
Why can’t we just talk about the actual event and the promotion of pool through this event without nit picking every damn thing this is to pool!!!
Like seriously…. Are you all that mental?!?!
Can’t you just talk about the play of the players and their guts to do their best?
Yes, depending on the situation with the cue ball, where it's sitting as well. All I'm saying is the drawn line is a barrier that can't be crossed by the cue ball or the 15th ball for any reason. The foot spot don't have any room for the 15th ball to sit just because there's no ball spotted on the apex of the rack, because it was be crossing the barrier surrounding the apex, identified by the line.
I think you're talking about the current rule. What Freddie is talking about is a new proposal that will have no line drawn on the table. Under his new and quite revolutionary proposal, a ball interferes with the rack only if it is in the actual space of a ball. This is very, very different from the current rule in which a line is drawn around the outside of the triangle and that outline determines in/out.
And his rule would literally eliminate the ability to use any other kind of rack except a template rack. And fudge the line of in/out of the rack area. Then, in/out of the rack would end up having less meaning.
No, because he proposes marking the position of any close ball, removing it, racking the balls by whatever method you choose, and then seeing if the marked ball can be replaced without moving a ball in the new rack. If it doesn't fit, it's spotted elsewhere according to the current spotting list.
I don't agree with moving the 15th ball unless its to spot it for any reason.
18,000 would be how many times the door was opened, not how many individuals attempted to open it once or more...
Ha! Ha! That's a good way of describing it!
All throughout last evening's live stream, the number of viewers seemed to be around 75, and around 45 were continuous even long after play had ended and SVB had left the building. I wonder if those 45 might have been pool halls that were showing the live stream but not actually watching it..
Oh for sure, and I still have remnants of an outline of my wooden rack on my cloth. Use it all the time to guage potential break balls. Extremely handy, but the convenience of the outline isn't what's being discussed.
I wish 14.1 had even the tiniest bit of traction in my region. Absolutely no chance of any level of organized competition. However, even if it did, the triangle outline with today's racking methods is as moot as it gets.
I will concede that having the outline would be a tool to keep racks in proper alignment, and handy in settling arguments between players.
Thanks Gerry.... You've graphed how badly 'in comparison', I play this game
No. These guys are trying to break records. So they should be following all the rules. Now would I invalidate someone's run because they don't have an outline of the rack on the table? Only if there was clear evidence upon review that a break ball would have interfered with the rack. Which is kind of why these guys are arguing the importance of the outline in the first place.
I don't think it takes guts to do this. I barely play the game, and my high run is only 42. But if Bobby wants to pay me, I'll gladly embarrass myself on stream for 8 hours a day.
SVB High Runs, November 02 - 05, 2021.
Day1. 25 runs, 1505 balls sunk, Average 63 balls/run.
Day 2, 21 runs, 1408 balls sunk, Average 67 balls/run.
Day 3, 14 runs, 1216 balls sunk, Average 87 balls/run.
Day 4, 16 runs, 1052 balls sunk, Average 66 balls/run.
------------------------------------------------------------
Total, 76 runs, 5261 balls sunk, Average 69 balls/run.
- About half of the runs were below 50 (49%)
- About 80% of the runs were below 100 (79%)
- about 1 out of 5 runs were above 100 (21%)
- about 1 out of 25 runs were above 200 (4%)
- about 1 out of 75 runs were above 300 (1.3%)
Day1. 25 runs, 1505 balls sunk, Average 63 balls/run.
Day 2, 21 runs, 1408 balls sunk, Average 67 balls/run.
Day 3, 14 runs, 1216 balls sunk, Average 87 balls/run.
Day 4, 16 runs, 1052 balls sunk, Average 66 balls/run.
------------------------------------------------------------
Total, 76 runs, 5261 balls sunk, Average 69 balls/run.
- About half of the runs were below 50 (49%)
- About 80% of the runs were below 100 (79%)
- about 1 out of 5 runs were above 100 (21%)
- about 1 out of 25 runs were above 200 (4%)
- about 1 out of 75 runs were above 300 (1.3%)
Last edited:
I commentated on over dozen of these matches over several years. I looked on youtube for those matches, which were played on tables upstairs used for the regular tournament. I haven’t seen a triangle outline on those. I’ll assume I just couldn’t see the outline from the booth.
You keep saying there is no good reason to change this rule, so I’m surprised at the total dismissive attitude.
1. Balls that are non-interfering with the balls yet interfering with the rack can be playable if we use a ballmarker
2. Ballmarkers like today’s markers didn’t exist before in US Pool. Now there seem to be a dozen different great options.
3. Today’s Perma-Rack already has shown what could happen if we use a ballmarker, meaning at least Shane’s shot shows him using a break ball that would have been interfering with most if not all of today’s racks. This is the same shot as he had to get an out-of-play ball to see if the break ball interfered. Not with a rack but with a racked ball.
4. Ballmarkers are already incorporated in other games for various reasons
5. There isn’t only one monstrosity rack. They’ve now become the norm. The rack itself has evolved. Something like a ballmarker takes the rack and it’s growing size out of the equation. Predator rack is a great example.
6. If traditionalists must have an outline, outline just the balls and no gap behind behind the rack. If a 15th ball ends up interfering with the actual rack in the back, use a ballmarker
7. If traditionalists must have an outline of an actual rack, what outline? See #5. A suggestion is to have a standard rack closer to yesteryear. What happens if the venue or event only has racks bigger than the prescribed outline? A ball marker solves that issue.
That’s plenty of good reason. And when this was brought up in the straight pool forum, plenty of people like the idea, while (like one person) were pretty traditionalist about it.
Last edited: