I think of the break as a skill set, so why have rules, and so many rules, restricting the break?

vintagecollectibles831 said:
He was following the restrictive rules though, right? Breaking within the box, and getting at least 3 balls past the spot. Sorry, I actually do not know what all the WNT rules are, for breaking, and too lazy to look them up, lol. That youtuber seems to think he did nothing against the rules though.
Click to expand...
Capito might fly a HK flag beside his name, but he can be a proponent of all the negative aspects of pinoy play. Seen some rather insufferable behaviour from him live, more than once...
On this occasion, I totally agree with skogstokig, he is trying to up the speed because of the warning (which he pretends he never got), and slices it thin.
I am curious about which spaniards are perceived as "soft"? Alcaide? FSR hits them pretty firm. I've seen Delgado blast them. Souto looks like someone who might mince a break to be fair lol
 
Jaden said:
There's a 5 dollar app that tells you the speed. Has to do with the distance to the balls and the time it takes from the sound of striking the cb to the sound of striking the head ball. It's accurate and reliable.
Click to expand...

Do the WNT rules state that the cue ball must be traveling at a minimum speed, or what? Very curious.
 
vintagecollectibles831 said:
What is considered a Soft Break though? Is that up to the Ref to decide? If he gets a certain amount of balls, up table (or whatever the rules say needs to be done), then why is it still considered a soft break? I am just trying to understand. Is Soft Breaking all based on opinion? Why not just have set rules, which none are based on opinion alone?
Click to expand...
Agree with you. It's currently on the subjective opinion of the referee. A player can call a referee over to observe (hate this, because as a player, it puts you in all kinds of awkward head space).
I know many pros are firmly in favour of setting up some kind of guide. Whether it a point rule or something else.
 
Flakeandrun said:
Capito might fly a HK flag beside his name, but he can be a proponent of all the negative aspects of pinoy play. Seen some rather insufferable behaviour from him live, more than once...
On this occasion, I totally agree with skogstokig, he is trying to up the speed because of the warning (which he pretends he never got), and slices it thin.
I am curious about which spaniards are perceived as "soft"? Alcaide? FSR hits them pretty firm. I've seen Delgado blast them. Souto looks like someone who might mince a break to be fair lol
Click to expand...

Again, we was following all of the rules though, right? Or, is the Soft Break all based on opinion?
 
Flakeandrun said:
Agree with you. It's currently on the subjective opinion of the referee. A player can call a referee over to observe (hate this, because as a player, it puts you in all kinds of awkward head space).
I know many pros are firmly in favour of setting up some kind of guide. Whether it a point rule or something else.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there should not be any rules that are subjective, in my opinion. I just do not think that is right. On paper though, he was doing nothing against the rules, other then the subjective opinion of the Ref (and his opponent), right? Why not just have a rule that states you must get at least 3 balls, or whatever, up table, past the side pocket? In my opinion, no Soft Break would be able to do that, right? Or, more then 3 balls? I do not know. Please forgive my ignorance.
 
vintagecollectibles831 said:
Again, we was following all of the rules though, right? Or, is the Soft Break all based on opinion?
Click to expand...
He had been warned, which meant the referee was able to impart their subjective opinion - "the ref is always right"
We don't argue with the ref, even when they are wrong. Just how it is, and how it should be. Referees are human, and are subsequently fallible.
On this occasion, I feel the ref perhaps referred to, and was overly influenced, by the spread he observed, rather than the speed of the ball.
Technically, this is to the letter of WNT rules. Which are notably ambiguous regarding this particular aspect. They are open to interpretation, and therefore, the ref is 100% within his remit to call it a "soft break"

100% case closed. Hope they add some stipulation for quantifying a "soft break" to avoid such essentially pointless and subjective discussions in the future.
 
vintagecollectibles831 said:
Yeah, there should not be any rules that are subjective, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. There are many aspects of pool that I find infuriatingly subjective or devoid of logic.
vintagecollectibles831 said:
I just do not think that is right. On paper though, he was doing nothing against the rules, other than the subjective opinion, right?
Click to expand...
The rules were followed by the ref in my opinion. He had an opinion, as he is encouraged to have, he enforced it post-warning.
vintagecollectibles831 said:
Why not just have a rule that states you must get at least 3 balls, or whatever, up table, past the side pocket?
Click to expand...
Or a speed gun. I am curious to see how this is dealt with by the WNT body.
 
skogstokig said:
in that particular break he was breaking thin, not soft, so the ref was wrong. capito is known as a soft breaker tho, as are the spaniards and a bunch other players on the tour.
Click to expand...

So, he will continue to break as soft as possible, just so the rules allow it. And, there should be no rules that are based on subjective opinion, in my opinion, lol.
 
Flakeandrun said:
He had been warned, which meant the referee was able to impart their subjective opinion - "the ref is always right"
We don't argue with the ref, even when they are wrong. Just how it is, and how it should be. Referees are human, and are subsequently fallible.
On this occasion, I feel the ref perhaps referred to, and was overly influenced, by the spread he observed, rather than the speed of the ball.
Technically, this is to the letter of WNT rules. Which are notably ambiguous regarding this particular aspect. They are open to interpretation, and therefore, the ref is 100% within his remit to call it a "soft break"

100% case closed. Hope they add some stipulation for quantifying a "soft break" to avoid such essentially pointless and subjective discussions in the future.
Click to expand...

But, that is the whole reason why they came up with requiring a certain amount of balls, to get past the spot, or past side pockets (up table), right? Lol, sorry, I do not know which one it is, or how many balls need to get up table, for it to not be considered a Soft Break. If he did that successfully, then the Ref should not have the right to call a Foul, for a Soft Break.
 
King T said:
All the Pro tournaments cured the wing ball issue by going to 4 1/4'' pockets..., yes the wing ball still goes, but few players are making multiple balls and even fewer are running out, there are very few big packages.
Click to expand...
Pocket size doesn't change geometry. I can easily make the wing every time on my table and it's 4-1/8. Taking away the angle via 9 on the spot and a break box removes that geometry. Filler even proved last year in WI(?) a wider break box isn't enough. If you have the wing wired you can focus on controlling the CB *and* the 1.
 
sudocrushms said:
Pocket size doesn't change geometry. I can easily make the wing every time on my table and it's 4-1/8. Taking away the angle via 9 on the spot and a break box removes that geometry. Filler even proved last year in WI(?) a wider break box isn't enough. If you have the wing wired you can focus on controlling the CB *and* the 1.
Click to expand...
Was it DCC with the bigger box? He made a joke of that tourney if I remember rightly lol
 
sudocrushms said:
Pocket size doesn't change geometry. I can easily make the wing every time on my table and it's 4-1/8. Taking away the angle via 9 on the spot and a break box removes that geometry. Filler even proved last year in WI(?) a wider break box isn't enough. If you have the wing wired you can focus on controlling the CB *and* the 1.
Click to expand...

Small pockets mean less of a chance of other balls going on the break, so making the wing ball and then running 8 balls is way different from making the wing ball and have 5 or even 6 balls to run. Using Filler as an example doesn't prove anything because he is a 1 of 1 in ball pocketing. There are a few people that are close, maybe as good at pocketing balls, but thats a small, very small number.

I respect the fact that you and most people can make the wing ball on any table....., but can you still run out on that same table with 4 1/4'' pockcts like you can on 5'' pockets?
 
King T said:
Small pockets mean less of a chance of other balls going on the break, so making the wing ball and then running 8 balls is way different from making the wing ball and have 5 or even 6 balls to run. Using Filler as an example doesn't prove anything because he is a 1 of 1 in ball pocketing. There are a few people that are close, maybe as good at pocketing balls, but thats a small, very small number.

I respect the fact that you and most people can make the wing ball on any table....., but can you still run out on that same table with 4 1/4'' pockcts like you can on 5'' pockets?
Click to expand...
I can't buy the Filler exclusion. He can bring it but it's still basics. Intermediate level pool at master levels. That's not magic. It's competence.

Since it's sports, the level has to average into the field. Which, apparently can't support a horde of BMX hotdog masters.
IOW, to me anyway, it is what it is.
 
Flakeandrun said:
Was it DCC with the bigger box? He made a joke of that tourney if I remember rightly lol
Click to expand...

Yeah, Filler was beating everyone, like 9-0, 9-1. I think he practically ran the set out on SVB, iirc. He would make the wing ball, and get shape, like every time. Make it look like child's play. It was pretty cool to see, lol.
 
Last edited:
vintagecollectibles831 said:
What is considered a Soft Break though? Is that up to the Ref to decide? If he gets a certain amount of balls, up table (or whatever the rules say needs to be done), then why is it still considered a soft break? I am just trying to understand. Is Soft Breaking all based on opinion? Why not just have set rules, which none are based on opinion alone?
Click to expand...
That’s the issue..it’s so simple to say ok the eye test says thats a soft break so you get a warning and now we monitor your speed for the rest of the match if gots below a certain number it’s a foul. So I agree the rule is to erroneous and can easily be fixed with an app we all have on our phone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top