Ultimate pool brackets and results

skip100 said:
Shooting away from a frozen ball is simply a made up, bullshit rule for what purports to be a major US pool tournament.
Click to expand...
All rules are "made up". To me, it's somewhat less bullshit than this alternative from another major US pool tournament:

"Object balls frozen to the cue ball or very close to the cue ball, require you to elevate the cue approximately 45 degrees to stroke the shot. This will be considered a legal shot even though a double hit may occur."

"very close", "approxilately" - ok then
www.derbycityclassic.com

Rules

Home of the Derby City Classic professional billiards tournament hosted by Diamond Billiard Products at Caesar's Southern Indiana Casino and Resort.
www.derbycityclassic.com www.derbycityclassic.com
 
Bob Jewett said:
Well, sort of. If an event has "unusual" rules -- out of the ordinary and maybe one some of the players have never encountered before -- in my view it is no good to just say, "You should have read the rules. They are available on-line." The tournament management should make sure that there is a good chance that all players understand the special rules. Was there an effort by the tournament management to make sure the special rules got disseminated?
Click to expand...
I agree- their rule about intention fouling is ridiculous too- it is too subjective. How can you really tell if somebody is making an honest effort to make contact with an object ball. I like Ultimate Pool, but they need to change some of their rules to make it more appealing.
 
u12armresl said:
Rodney Archer and Hennesey were the Atlanta North team.
Click to expand...
But do they contribute any other way? Sponsor, play league or anything else. The owners of the league have deep pockets but us amateurs also help foot the bill. Nice to see Shane and others but to him it seems like a payday. I could be wrong.
 
Rocket354 said:
But it is still there for a reason.
Click to expand...
The historical reason that the UK (and UP, which is a UK company) has their frozen ball rule is that about 120 years ago, they played a different game that was more like carom billiards, that they called "billiards" and we call English Billiards. They allowed shooting through, but it made one part of the game (simple caroms/cannons) too easy. They changed the rule to forbid both double hits and shooting through frozen balls.
 
westcoast said:
I agree- their rule about intention fouling is ridiculous too- it is too subjective. How can you really tell if somebody is making an honest effort to make contact with an object ball. I like Ultimate Pool, but they need to change some of their rules to make it more appealing.
Click to expand...
The rule forbidding intentional fouls is also from UK tradition. The rules of snooker have the general idea that a player must never, ever benefit from a foul shot. If you miss hitting a ball, there is a point penalty but also the opponent can have the balls put back so you have to play from the snooker again. UP took the simpler route of forfeiting the game for such unsportsmanlike conduct.
 
Bob Jewett said:
The historical reason that the UK (and UP, which is a UK company) has their frozen ball rule is that about 120 years ago, they played a different game that was more like carom billiards, that they called "billiards" and we call English Billiards. They allowed shooting through, but it made one part of the game (simple caroms/cannons) too easy. They changed the rule to forbid both double hits and shooting through frozen balls.
Click to expand...
Bob Jewett said:
The rule forbidding intentional fouls is also from UK tradition. The rules of snooker have the general idea that a player must never, ever benefit from a foul shot. If you miss hitting a ball, there is a point penalty but also the opponent can have the balls put back so you have to play from the snooker again. UP took the simpler route of forfeiting the game for such unsportsmanlike conduct.
Click to expand...

Good history, but to me it just reinforces my ever increasing desire to prevent the snookerization of pool. As to the frozen ball rules from carom, the player has the option of shooting away or spotting, right? Maybe not in English billiards. Pool doesn’t need or deserve the lousy rules or other things like pink or brown balls, vocabulary including but not limited to “ pot” “ potting” etc…. We need Fatboy to address these issues as well I think. This goes for UPL and WNT. 😉
 
JPB2 said:
... As to the frozen ball rules from carom, the player has the option of shooting away or spotting, right? ...
Click to expand...
At carom (pocketless billiards), the rule depends on the game being played. In some games there is a choice and in others the balls must spot, but certainly shooting into a frozen ball and double hits are both fouls.
 
Bob Jewett said:
The rule forbidding intentional fouls is also from UK tradition. The rules of snooker have the general idea that a player must never, ever benefit from a foul shot. If you miss hitting a ball, there is a point penalty but also the opponent can have the balls put back so you have to play from the snooker again. UP took the simpler route of forfeiting the game for such unsportsmanlike conduct.
Click to expand...
My point is that it isn't always clear that an intentional foul was committed. Sometimes you can't tell if somebody is making a sincere effort- there are times when you are badly hooked.
 
do you mean in addition to the penalty of giving ball in hand there is a warning or something if you fail to get out of a safety? don't think i get it. and it doesn't compare to snooker because snooker doesn't have the ball in hand penalty
 
skogstokig said:
do you mean in addition to the penalty of giving ball in hand there is a warning or something if you fail to get out of a safety?
Click to expand...

No. If you don't have a shot, and you intentionally shoot to make the table disadvantageous for your opponent instead of trying to hit the object ball, it's loss of rack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top