14.1 rack question

[middleofnowhere]

Is there a official type of rack to be used for 14.1? I ask this because when watching one of the runs by Jayson things went wrong and his break ball got moved. When the balls were racked (placed actually), there would have been no way any conventional rack would have fit between the break ball and the rack. This was not during the record run by the way. Normally it would have been spotted at the other end of the table. Jason managed to make a break shot. This could be critical in a game. I don't have a rule book. does it define a rack? I know some are thin plastic and some can be pretty huge wooden racks. Is something official?

 

[ChrisinNC]

Is there a official type of rack to be used for 14.1? I ask this because when watching one of the runs by Jayson things went wrong and his break ball got moved. When the balls were racked (placed actually), there would have been no way any conventional rack would have fit between the break ball and the rack. This was not during the record run by the way. Normally it would have been spotted at the other end of the table. Jason managed to make a break shot. This could be critical in a game. I don't have a rule book. does it define a rack? I know some are thin plastic and some can be pretty huge wooden racks. Is something official?

I believe I remember the exact shot you are talking about. The ball was near the top of the rack just to the left of center. He made some incredible shots just to get down to those final two balls, which were virtually frozen together. He pocketed the key ball in the side pocket and left a slight angle for that last ball that was at the very top of the rack.

When the gentleman stepped in to rack the balls, he entirely blocked the view of the camera, so you can’t tell whether he had to move that ball or not in order to rack the balls. Luckily, this incident did not occur on the 714 ball run.

 

[middleofnowhere]

I believe I remember the exact shot you are talking about. The ball was near the top of the rack just to the left of center. He made some incredible shots just to get down to those final two balls, which were virtually frozen together. He pocketed the key ball in the side pocket and left a slight angle for that last ball that was at the very top of the rack.

When the gentleman stepped in to rack the balls, he entirely blocked the view of the camera, so you can’t tell whether he had to move that ball or not in order to rack the balls. Luckily, this incident did not occur on the 714 ball run.

Oh wouldn't have ever for a second thought he would ever have moved the ball. But the way he was placing the balls for the rerack is very possible to place the balls and have that break ball so close that no regular rack would ever have fit in between the break ball and the rack of balls.

I only bring it up for future reference. Can players just begin inventing their own way of racking the balls. Of course any tournament can play any way they want but there should be some guidelines as to how much reinventing of the game you can do.

 

[Shuddy]

All sports adapt to technology, Hawkeye for example. In my opinion, the spirit of the rules is that a ball should not prevent other balls from being racked in their appropriate positions. When triangle racks were standard, this obviously meant that any ball interfering with the rack itself would have to be moved. However, we have better options these days for more consistent racking, templates and the PermaRack used in the Legends event being examples of this.

The intent of 14.1 is to leave a single ball outside the 14 reracked balls, and to use that ball to break the rack and continue playing.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Is there a official type of rack to be used for 14.1? I ask this because when watching one of the runs by Jayson things went wrong and his break ball got moved. When the balls were racked (placed actually), there would have been no way any conventional rack would have fit between the break ball and the rack. This was not during the record run by the way. Normally it would have been spotted at the other end of the table. Jason managed to make a break shot. This could be critical in a game. I don't have a rule book. does it define a rack? I know some are thin plastic and some can be pretty huge wooden racks. Is something official?

There's some recent discussion of this topic in this thread:

How to make perfect rack outline on cloth?

Any idea how they marked this nice thin outline around the rack? I want to do the same.

forums.azbilliards.com

pj
chgo

 

[The_JV]

I've gone down this rabbit hole within this subforum before.

I use a template for racking 14.1. The rules say that a ball cannot interfere with racking. Purists will say that templates don't allow for the written rule to be applied. They also have zero input on the official outside dimensions of a triangle.

I've opted to keep using a template, but use my (I guess official) wooden triangle to guage whether or not a ball would interfere with a traditional racking method.

There's a few unmeasured regulations in 14.1 that really have zero bearing but some demand must be followed...lol

 

[Bob Jewett]

... The rules say that a ball cannot interfere with racking. ...

No, they don't. They are far more specific than that. Among other things, they specify that a triangle outline will still be drawn even if a triangle is not used for racking. I was glad to see that Bobby eventually drew an outline.

 

[The_JV]

No, they don't. They are far more specific than that. Among other things, they specify that a triangle outline will still be drawn even if a triangle is not used for racking. I was glad to see that Bobby eventually drew an outline.

I'll differ to your knowledge of the rules. Can you comment on the specifics as to the size of triangle used to draw the outline?

 

[DynoDan]

I'll differ to our knowledge of the rules. Can you comment on the specifics as to the size of triangle used to draw the outline?

I realize there is much controversy over this issue, but traditionally, the pencil line was always drawn around whatever rack was handy, and balls were never marked/moved. If the last ball interfered with racking, it went to the headspot. Mastering the two-rail brakeshot was something most 14.1 players practiced/learned.

 

[The_JV]

I realize there is much controversy over this issue, but traditionally, the pencil line was always drawn around whatever rack was handy, and balls were never marked/moved. If the last ball interfered with racking, it went to the headspot. Mastering the two-rail brakeshot was something most 14.1 players practiced/learned.

Exactly... much ado about nothing.

I could fab up a functional triangle out of 1/8" steel and according the regs it would be perfectly legit.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Exactly... much ado about nothing.

I could fab up a functional triangle out of 1/8" steel and according the regs it would be perfectly legit.

As long as it falls under "proper use of equipment", I guess it would be.

 

[The_JV]

As long as it falls under "proper use of equipment", I guess it would be.

Exactly my point.

I know I'm the devil in this discussion. However with such wishy washy rules regarding racking 'zone' why give them any serious credence at all.

If someone wants a line on their table for sake of the purist's take on the game, then have at it. Just realize you may or may not be doing yourself a disservice by doing so. In theory a completely 'valid' outline could be so close to the rack that you can't make some break balls anyway.

I would just much prefer a hard fast number. 1/2", 5/8".... whatever. Safe to assume the rule is so vague in this regard because those with the pen just wanted something that could be applied regardless of the location/equipment being used.

I'd still use a template for racking purposes, but at least I would have a real guage to measure against the rule.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... I know I'm the devil in this discussion. However with such wishy washy rules regarding racking 'zone' why give them any serious credence at all.
...

The rule about rack interference at 14.1 was not problematic for over 100 years. You put a triangle on the table, you draw an outline, in/out is according to the outline.

Now some people are not using traditional triangles and there are issues. The rules say to mark a triangle outline and use that in such a case.

The problem seems to be that there is no standard definition of a triangle. Lots of pool equipment doesn't have complete, standard definitions. One way to solve this is to require equipment to be approved/certified by the governing body. I don't know of any such mechanism for pool.

Another solution is to specify an outline to be used if there is no approved triangle available. The shape of that outline needs to look a lot like a "normal" triangle. It needs to be tight enough that it does not prevent reasonable break balls. It needs to large enough that it does not allow break balls that are impossible to pocket directly (see below). I'll see what I can do.

A more radical approach is to say that a ball interferes with racking only if it overlaps a ball in the new rack. The outline might or might not be marked, but the outline would not be used for in/out. The outline would just give the player a hint about where the balls were going to be. This puts a large, new burden on the player to decide whether a ball is going to be useable. (Some break balls under this scheme cannot be pocketed directly to a pocket. Imagine a break ball that almost frozen to the back of the rack.)

This more radical approach would sometimes require marking the break ball and replacing it depending on the rack used.

 

[The_JV]

The rule about rack interference at 14.1 was not problematic for over 100 years. You put a triangle on the table, you draw an outline, in/out is according to the outline.

Now some people are not using traditional triangles and there are issues. The rules say to mark a triangle outline and use that in such a case.

The problem seems to be that there is no standard definition of a triangle. Lots of pool equipment doesn't have complete, standard definitions. One way to solve this is to require equipment to be approved/certified by the governing body. I don't know of any such mechanism for pool.

Another solution is to specify an outline to be used if there is no approved triangle available. The shape of that outline needs to look a lot like a "normal" triangle. It needs to be tight enough that it does not prevent reasonable break balls. It needs to large enough that it does not allow break balls that are impossible to pocket directly (see below). I'll see what I can do.

A more radical approach is to say that a ball interferes with racking only if it overlaps a ball in the new rack. The outline might or might not be marked, but the outline would not be used for in/out. The outline would just give the player a hint about where the balls were going to be. This puts a large, new burden on the player to decide whether a ball is going to be useable. (Some break balls under this scheme cannot be pocketed directly to a pocket. Imagine a break ball that almost frozen to the back of the rack.)

This more radical approach would sometimes require marking the break ball and replacing it depending on the rack used.

Absolutely nailed it....

I have zero issues with an outline to hold true to the original intent of the 'rule'. My problem is just with the arbitrary use of 'whatever is handy'.

For all the drama over 14.1 pocket specs, can you imagine if one of the last break balls of Shaw's 714 pushed the dimensions of "somebody's" triangle...? Here we actually have a rule (used loosely) that could discredit the effort but no real grounds to make a decision.

lol... Imagine that they just happened to use a given triangle for that line that got misplaced afterward. It just happened to be the biggest one in the room. The replacement just happend to be smaller... oh no, now what...?

 

[DynoDan]

I'd still use a template for racking purposes……

Much like ‘jump cues’, templates are (IMHO) a bastardization and violation of the spirit of the game. An instance where every racked ball is perfectly frozen to it’s neighbors has always been extremely rare. Most wooden triangles are imperfectly formed, and cloth that isn’t new causes uneven settling. Gimmicks are unavoidable today in the short rack games that get the most televised attention, merely to attract needed viewers. But, since straight pool is no longer the traditional ‘championship’ game of yesteryear, introducing gimmicks that remove the risks that legendary champions had to contend with seems rather pointless. Faster cloth, resin balls, trued metal racks, premium chalk, OK. But there has to be a limit (?).

 

[The_JV]

Much like ‘jump cues’, templates are (IMHO) a bastardization and violation of the spirit of the game. An instance where every racked ball is perfectly frozen to it’s neighbors has always been extremely rare. Most wooden triangles are imperfectly formed, and cloth that isn’t new causes uneven settling. Gimmicks are unavoidable today in the short rack games that get the most televised attention, merely to attract needed viewers. But, since straight pool is no longer the traditional ‘championship’ game of yesteryear, introducing gimmicks that remove the risks that legendary champions had to contend with seems rather pointless. Faster cloth, resin balls, trued metal racks, premium chalk, OK. But there has to be a limit (?).

...and I understand that stance, and respect it.

My only argument is that if someone gaff racked you while playing 14.1 would you have issue with it, or consider it apart of the spirit of the game.

The point is, the goal 'should' be to ensure that the racked balls are as tight as possible. You can burn time attempting to do so with a triangle, or use a template. If you're willing to accept a sub pair effort in racking as a means to hold on to some preconceived 'spirit' of the game, so be it. I won't judge. I pefer to measure my success in terms of my ability to play, not rack.

 

[DynoDan]

...and I understand that stance, and respect it.

My only argument is that if someone gaff racked you while playing 14.1 would you have issue with it, or consider it apart of the spirit of the game.

The point is, the goal 'should' be to ensure that the racked balls are as tight as possible. You can burn time attempting to do so with a triangle, or use a template. If you're willing to accept a sub pair effort in racking as a means to hold on to some preconceived 'spirit' of the game, so be it. I won't judge. I pefer to measure my success in terms of my ability to play, not rack.

Your implication is, that an opponent could hand-place the balls onto a template faster than he could rack them acceptably with a triangle (?). I’d like to see that tested. Unless the cloth is really bad, with a good triangle and (typically) many years of racking experience…..no contest! (IMO).

BTW: If ‘time’ was such an issue regardless, then every table should have a ball return. I know I would rather be thinking about my breakshot instead of fishing balls out for my opponent to rack.

 

[7stud]

Your implication is, that an opponent could hand-place the balls onto a template faster than he could rack them acceptably with a triangle (?). I’d like to see that tested.

Go look at the videos from the most recent Turning Stone. Racking with a triangle took ridiculously long. Sometimes the racker would call the other player over, and whisper something like, "I can't f---ing rack the balls. What should I do?" Asking for a re-rack happened many times--even though that was supposedly against the TD's rule that the breaker couldn't examine the rack.

 

[The_JV]

Your implication is, that an opponent could hand-place the balls onto a template faster than he could rack them acceptably with a triangle (?). I’d like to see that tested. Unless the cloth is really bad, with a good triangle and (typically) many years of racking experience…..no contest! (IMO).

No in the slightest... My clearly stated opinion without any implication. Is that a tight rack should be the goal and using a template does that in orders of magnitude faster and easier then a triangle. Can you throw balls in a triangle, push the would be head ball over the foot spot, and leave a triangle shape on the table faster than using a template...?..., certainly. However unless the table is 'trained' (think a template of dimples in the cloth) merely checking a rack born of a triangle should take longer than loading an actual template.

BTW: If ‘time’ was such an issue regardless, then every table should have a ball return. I know I would rather be thinking about my breakshot instead of fishing balls out for my opponent to rack.

The byproduct is the time savings. Of course that's moot if you don't care about the quality of the rack balls. Which I already asked you once, but didn't get a response. The goal, once more, is a quality rack of balls so you don't get screwed over by haphazard effort.

 

[DynoDan]

No in the slightest... My clearly stated opinion without any implication. Is that a tight rack should be the goal and using a template does that in orders of magnitude faster and easier then a triangle. Can you throw balls in a triangle, push the would be head ball over the foot spot, and leave a triangle shape on the table faster than using a template...?..., certainly. However unless the table is 'trained' (think a template of dimples in the cloth) merely checking a rack born of a triangle should take longer than loading an actual template.

The byproduct is the time savings. Of course that's moot if you don't care about the quality of the rack balls. Which I already asked you once, but didn't get a response. The goal, once more, is a quality rack of balls so you don't get screwed over by haphazard effort.

Actually, in my experience, ‘trained’ cloth actually slows the racking process. Finding that ‘exact‘ position usually takes longer. I suppose (upon reflection), since crooked triangles, bad cloth, and cheap or unevenly worn balls are such common conditions, I can’t really blame those who prefer the precision of a template instead.

True, there is also usually some error in whether the racked balls are placed perfectly square to the end rail (compared to a properly positioned template), and a well-intentioned opponent (even under ideal equipment conditions) will often leave you a rack with some balls unfrozen. But, the ‘haphazard’ issue has traditionally always been part the game (and maybe part of it’s attraction?). Just saying.

Time does march on. I’m reminded of the subtle sharking trick Willie used to unnerve his opponents (spilling powder on their shoes). Those days are likely gone forever too, since powder is now commonly banned .