New 1P Rules For The Derby City Classic

[maha]

true but the opponent getting ahead can wedge balls up table and force you to sell out or forfeit because your time will run out.

no way should a time clock can be made to effect your outcome from your opponents play of it.

it isnt like chess but where one player can make games last much longer.

example your down 3 to 0 in a race to five. he slows the game down and you have no chance of ever getting past him in the score.
so you might have to slam break balls open so the games can go faster.

 

[straightline]

true but the opponent getting ahead can wedge balls up table and force you to sell out or forfeit because your time will run out.

no way should a time clock can be made to effect your outcome from your opponents play of it.

it isnt like chess but where one player can make games last much longer.

example your down 3 to 0 in a race to five. he slows the game down and you have no chance of ever getting past him in the score.
so you might have to slam break balls open so the games can go faster.

This is why penalizing the up-table game should be a requirement. Over the limit could be a win or loss. Either has intellectual/strategic elements.

 

[Bob Jewett]

true but the opponent getting ahead can wedge balls up table and force you to sell out or forfeit because your time will run out.
...

It is possible to set the clock to have a "grace period", and your clock doesn't start to run on your turn until after the grace period is finished. With a 20-second grace period, and quick decisions, you could play through a long spell of safes by your opponent. Note that you are allowed to think about your shot while the balls are still rolling from your opponent's shot. Your turn does not start until it is legal for you to shoot.

And if up-table play is used as a strategy for time tactics, apply the Grady rule as a last resort.

 

[Baby Huey]

There's a problem where one player can control where balls end up. To have a wedge it takes TWO willing participants to want the same situation. I'm not saying balls don't got up table but rather getting into a wedge is a different scenario. Bob Jewett mentioned a a "grace period" and use of the "Grady Rule" if needed. Both are reasonable options if some pre-established time period elapsed for the players to play the game before other measures were put in place.

 

[straightline]

There's a problem where one player can control where balls end up. To have a wedge it takes TWO willing participants to want the same situation. I'm not saying balls don't got up table but rather getting into a wedge is a different scenario. Bob Jewett mentioned a a "grace period" and use of the "Grady Rule" if needed. Both are reasonable options if some pre-established time period elapsed for the players to play the game before other measures were put in place.

Why allow a wedge anyway? Is it pool or tugga waw? (Indian game) Since it's DCC, breakout the doubling cubes, stiffen the up table rules, make it 2 outta 3 with the look of high stakes - chips, wads , whatever. If they wanna play the old fashioned "man's" way, do it in the action rooms.

 

[lfigueroa]

Even with all of that, 1-pckt takes a long time to play.

Room owners need to make money by having more players present at tournaments and spectators.
Unless you play this game watching it can be boring for spectators.

Could it be that tournament one pocket and gambler style between two players one pocket diverge to fill
the room owners needs?

There have been a few conversations I have had about this. One form would be like Straight Pool where you
can break make a ball and start running balls, the other that I've heard is to simply allow the games to go on as usual and
to have the players to race to a number of balls under the current rules.

Other deciding factors could come up like-- is this going to be rotating the break etc.

I am registered to play one this month, where Fargo and spots are being employed and I have no Fargo rating and there will be spots used, so there are a lot of things that could be done to bring the game into I guess you would call it, the new age, where Pool Leagues are the
biggest action around. We need to bring folks into the game, because it's the best game there is.

This past weekend in my local room there were 192 players at a 7ft bar table event with 10's of thousands of dollars
on the line. That is a movement getting more attention than the older tours around here ever did.

Pool changes slow, but it does change.

Chess Clocks have gotten better and cheaper since I had a chess club.

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=chess+clock+wooden&i=fashion-womens&crid=2V1JW6HI86PFI&sprefix=chess+clock+wooden%2Cfashion-womens%2C146&ref=nb_sb_noss_1

1pocket, especially nowadays, does not take a long time to play.

Just at the International Open and virtaually all the matches finished well under the three hour limit. Personally, I believe it's because the common style of play has evolved thanks to Efren, Scott, and Tony. The old, "you don't kick at a ball unless you're mad at your backer" is far in the past and guys are shooting much more sophisticated shots, banks, kicks, and safeties from 20-30 years ago. The fact is that if you want to be competitive today you have to be far more aggressive than in years past. You don't really see anywhere near as many games with a bunch of balls up table anymores.

Not saying there aren't dinosaurs still out there but if it's a decent field time is not a problem. The Derby is just a different kettle of fish.

Lou Figueroa

 

[gregcantrall]

This topic reminds me of the report of Cole and Cecil Tugwell playing 7 games of 1 pocket in 35 minutes. With the breaker running out in his second inning every game.
Give them a chess clock set at 35 minutes.
Should move the event along .

 

[336Robin]

1pocket, especially nowadays, does not take a long time to play.

Just at the International Open and virtaually all the matches finished well under the three hour limit. Personally, I believe it's because the common style of play has evolved thanks to Efren, Scott, and Tony. The old, "you don't kick at a ball unless you're mad at your backer" is far in the past and guys are shooting much more sophisticated shots, banks, kicks, and safeties from 20-30 years ago. The fact is that if you want to be competitive today you have to be far more aggressive than in years past. You don't really see anywhere near as many games with a bunch of balls up table anymores.

Not saying there aren't dinosaurs still out there but if it's a decent field time is not a problem. The Derby is just a different kettle of fish.

Lou Figueroa

Agreed.

That isn't bad for the Derby which is set up for it.

When you start using pool rooms for tournaments, other things start being a problem,
like taking up all of the 9ft tables all day on Saturday which is high earning potential time.
So, tournament wise it's not for every room.

 

[qolbrand]

the only way i could see a chess clock is if the ref puts it in after seeing slow play.
other wise it is a distraction and punishment to all the players. unless it is automatic or the ref is using it.

but it can only be a shot clock and not a time bank as that becomes a weapon.

I like that.

“alright boys put on your dunce hats and finish up”

no problems, no clocks

 

[straightline]

Probably more important: The official has to have the backing of management to squish the snails. I doubt that's the case.

I still have hope for chess clocks. In my experience, just having a clock at the table makes the snails move faster. And sometimes they just go away.

Just occurred to me chess has stalemates just like one pocket. The only difference being their disposition.

Therefore...

 

[Tobermory]

For a different approach to the problem of stalling, see the thread “DCC 1p Rule Change,” ##33-39.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I think a good guideline would be to take some kind of action if the players fail to finish a game each half hour. Don't wait for disaster to happen. Don't just tell them at 3 hours the match is done.

 

[BadBrad]

This may not be a new rule, but I haven't seen it before...

Trapping or Wedging the Cue Ball
It is a foul if a player deliberately traps or wedges the cue ball in the jaw of a pocket. In addition to the foul penalty, the opponent receives cue ball in hand behind the head string.

This was just brought to my attention, and I'm wondering if this translates to "you can't deliberately corner hook your opponent"? This seems contrary to the spirit of the game, unless Trapping or Wedging means something else? Does anyone have any insight?

 

[straightline]

More than likely anything you actually shoot is OK.

 

[skogstokig]

This may not be a new rule, but I haven't seen it before...

Trapping or Wedging the Cue Ball
It is a foul if a player deliberately traps or wedges the cue ball in the jaw of a pocket. In addition to the foul penalty, the opponent receives cue ball in hand behind the head string.

This was just brought to my attention, and I'm wondering if this translates to "you can't deliberately corner hook your opponent"? This seems contrary to the spirit of the game, unless Trapping or Wedging means something else? Does anyone have any insight?

uhh.. that's certainly new, and contrary to spirit of the game. i wonder what they were thinking there

 

[sjm]

Even though they are not perfect, I favor these changes.

Still, why one-pocket remains the scapegoat for the Derby's enduring failure to maintain a reasonable schedule is beyond me. Yes, one pocket does cause some delays, but the biggest delays always occur in 9ball, and 2025 was no exception. In fact, in the closing hours of day nine, which had 9ball only, the production crew and the shot clock operators went to sleep long before the play was completed and a couple of snail-paced 9ball matches, played without the shot clock on the TV table, backed up the entire 9ball event by a couple of hours. Even so, things were much better than in 2023 and 2024.

The players and the staff must both do better if the play is to be completed in a timely manner.

 

[Bob Jewett]

This may not be a new rule, but I haven't seen it before...

Trapping or Wedging the Cue Ball
It is a foul if a player deliberately traps or wedges the cue ball in the jaw of a pocket. ...

Suppose the cue ball is in the center of a head pocket and you want to take a foul and leave the cue ball frozen to the long-rail jaw of that pocket. Absolutely frozen. One way is to shoot a very delicate tap, moving the ball exactly 1.372 inches. A much easier way is to shoot towards the facing more firmly, hitting the cue ball two or three times until the tip is firmly pressing the cue ball into the facing. Then the cue is pulled back.

The first is a permitted way to take the foul, the second is forbidden by the quoted rule. I think it might have been clearer if they had described the shot as a deliberate double hit.

Another example of a forbidden stroke is an intentional miscue. And there are other situations where an intentional double hit can get you out of trouble, both at one pocket and other games.

 

[maha]

any intentional foul that comes along with a stroke foul should have a bigger penalty. especially in games without a ball in hand penalty.

gambling we just would require him to re do the shot. at our option unless it also disturbed other balls and cant be recreated.

 

[Bob Jewett]

any intentional foul that comes along with a stroke foul should have a bigger penalty. especially in games without a ball in hand penalty.

gambling we just would require him to re do the shot. at our option unless it also disturbed other balls and cant be recreated.

It used to be that in straight pool tournaments it was standard to play intentional double hit fouls in some situations. When playing fouls against a nearly untouched rack, players would often press the cue ball into the rack leaving it wedged against two or three balls.

That was an acceptable shot in top play. I assume that if you pushed the ball in a ways and then turned and pushed it in more to block all paths to a cushion, that would be too much. I wonder what you could have gotten away with.

 

[maha]

in the old straight pool tournaments players for the most part played what they thought was a gentleman's game.
and considered tit for tat.