Rules Question - Why

[David in FL]

You asked.
I said.

The element of of surprise is pretty cool and often hilarious but the game of pool is way beyond dumb luck. If the tables were cars, they'd have to be recalled. They cost enough...
The <is what it is> 'word' is how come the foreigners will pillage. There's a reign in foreign.

I congratulate you if you've only played pool on tables that are perfect.

But the point is that the rules have to apply to those tables that are not too

 

[DeeDeeCues]

The element of of surprise is pretty cool and often hilarious but the game of pool is way beyond dumb luck. If the tables were cars, they'd have to be recalled.

Cars that failed as rarely as this occurs on pool tables would never be recalled. That kind of 'failure' wouldn't even be a blip on the car reliability rating.

 

[straightline]

Cars that failed as rarely as this occurs on pool tables would never be recalled. That kind of 'failure' wouldn't even be a blip on the car reliability rating.

But the pocket spitting would come under catastrophic design flaw. Consider any other precision instrument that has shown behavior similar to those pockets.

Deliberate extremity:
Gun that occasionally blows up in the chamber.
Bow that occasionally skews way off target.
Etc...

Those flaws have already been addressed.

Pool table that costs as much as a car... pass.

 

[straightline]

But the point is that the rules have to apply to those tables that are not too

There is such a thing as a certification process where tables could be graded and matched to extreme specs.
As it is, the BCA Inquisition - can you imagine? "Oh yeah, I got stuck at the bar. Nobody GAF anyway..."

 

[DeeDeeCues]

But the pocket spitting would come under catastrophic design flaw. Consider any other precision instrument that has shown behavior similar to those pockets.

No it wouldn't. You are being obtuse and ridiculous. A catastrophic design flaw on a pool table would be the legs spontaneously breaking, giving the opportunity for the table to fall on someone. Spitting a ball back out due to someone hitting too hard is more operator fault than equipment fault.

 

[straightline]

No it wouldn't. You are being obtuse and ridiculous. A catastrophic design flaw on a pool table would be the legs spontaneously breaking, giving the opportunity for the table to fall on someone. Spitting a ball back out due to someone hitting too hard is more operator fault than equipment fault.

Yes that would be catastrophic. Given the purpose of a pool table, spitting pocket can be loss of game due to faulty design. Catastrophic by scale.

 

[GideonF]

Spitting a ball back out due to someone hitting too hard is more operator fault than equipment fault.

A ball should not pop out of another pocket from the ball return no matter how hard you hit it. The fact that Diamond sent a technician out to fix it speaks volumes.

Also, unless someone is slamming the ball in for no reason, they probably aren’t “hitting too hard” - they are hitting hard enough to get position. A player shouldn’t have to play safe or a different shot because there is a tiny chance the table is defective.

 

[straightline]

A ball should not pop out of another pocket from the ball return no matter how hard you hit it. The fact that Diamond sent a technician out to fix it speaks volumes.

Also, unless someone is slamming the ball in for no reason, they probably aren’t “hitting too hard” - they are hitting hard enough to get position. A player shouldn’t have to play safe or a different shot because there is a tiny chance the table is defective.

None of the examples depict banging of any kind.

 

[David in FL]

There is such a thing as a certification process where tables could be graded and matched to extreme specs.
As it is, the BCA Inquisition - can you imagine? "Oh yeah, I got stuck at the bar. Nobody GAF anyway..."

The rules apply to the game, regardless of the equipment.

Have you ever watched any Philippine pool?

Table "certifications"?

Yeah, no.

 

[straightline]

The rules apply to the game, regardless of the equipment.

Perfectly aware of the status quo. Offers nothing but the state of supply side profiteering.
Why is gear spec'd out in the rules? Over spec'd in regard to stuff like jump cue length and inadequately I'd add when it comes to really critical specs. Zero in this case. Insufficient is insufficient.

 

[David in FL]

Perfectly aware of the status quo. Offers nothing but the state of supply side profiteering.
Why is gear spec'd out in the rules? Over spec'd in regard to stuff like jump cue length and inadequately I'd add when it comes to really critical specs. Zero in this case. Insufficient is insufficient.

It's not.

There are rules for gear specs.

Having said that, the cost of equipment rises dramatically with ridiculous, unnecessary requirements based upon an extraordinarily rare situation.

Silliness.

But the thread is about the rules of play, and how to proceed under a given circumstance, and again, they should apply to everyone equally. Whether at the highest level of professional play, or your local Tuesday night chip game...

Pool is pool. Play the game and have fun. Sometimes you get the breaks, sometimes you don't. I hate it when the ball rattles out of the pocket when it "should've" gone in too, but that's the game.

 

[straightline]

But the thread is about the rules of play, and how to proceed under a given circumstance, and again, they should apply to everyone equally. Whether at the highest level of professional play, or your local Tuesday night chip game...

The _<rules>_ are about "the rules of play, and how to proceed under a given circumstance..."
The post itself raises questions about specific rules and their validity. If it doesn't to you, congrats on your contento botness.

 

[David in FL]

The rules are about "the rules of play, and how to proceed under a given circumstance..."
The post itself raises questions about specific rules and their validity. If it doesn't to you, congrats on your contento botness.

Why?

Did you not read the Original Post before jumping in here?

 

[straightline]

Why what?

 

[David in FL]

Why what?

Why does my "post itself raises questions about specific rules and their validity".

Which rules do you question the validity of based on my post about the subject of this thread?

 

[straightline]

Why does my "post itself raises questions about specific rules and their validity".

The OP. It's not about you.

 

[David in FL]

The OP. It's not about you.

Ahhhh

Yes, the OP raised the question about the rules of play

It has nothing to do with rules with respect to rules relating to equipment specifications

 

[straightline]

It has nothing to do with rules with respect to rules relating to equipment specifications

The rules regarding the issue have nothing to do with pocket spitting.

 

[iusedtoberich]

What I remember reading about the Diamond table shot coming out another side pocket, was that there was nothing wrong with THAT table or its setup. It was just a freak occurrence, and that Diamond later added some sort of a baffle on future designs to prevent it from happening entirely.

 

[iusedtoberich]

...snip...

One pocket players have even been known to do that on purpose. There is a standard fancy shot -- Alex P. shot it in a recent video -- in which a sure scratch into the side is avoided by hopping the cue ball to the top of the liner and back onto the table.


...snip...

There was a top local/low level pro Russel Parsens from DE that owned a room. He showed all of us kids that "hoop the rim" shot in the 90's. He knew every single trick in the book. Funny about Alex... Corey and Alex beat him out of about 5k in the mid/late 90's. They took turns playing him one night. Ended up giving him the 5 or 5 out and beat him. He was probably a 740 speed player at the time. I wasn't there, but heard the story for years.