I would mention that no doubt.
Dealing with cheats
- Thread starter Effenbobsaget
- Start date
It’s a legal rack about once. The main rule says the balls are placed randomly except the 8 and one stripe/solid at the corners. That doesn’t look random and wasn’t given my recollection of seeing it on YouTube. But it could be random. So you see how it goes. The second time when the “ random” rack that is identical to the first “random” rack reacts the same you know there is a reason for the unusual pattern. A warning then would be appropriate. Third time I think it’s clear it isn’t legal. With or without warning. The applied ruling language doesn’t save this one I don’t think. After the break it was clear the pattern was different from a pattern created by alternating some balls.
And it did give a distinct pattern in my recollection. I don’t like the UPL pattern rack, but that one doesn’t do what Coreys rack did.
The reason they came up with one solid in one corner and a stripe in the other is that they did statistical analysis in the 90's that showed that was the only thing that made a difference. Whether it's possible with a second ball break and one in the side to better control it, is another story. I guess it's possible, but for Christ's sake can't anyone who uses their skill and their intellect to develop an advantage use it???
What they did to Corey when he developed the soft break and started dominating in the late 90's/ear;y 2000's was bad enough, Give the guy a break and quit raining on his parade...
What they did to Corey when he developed the soft break and started dominating in the late 90's/ear;y 2000's was bad enough, Give the guy a break and quit raining on his parade...
First off let me admit I haven't kept up with current associations and rules, I am not interested in tournament play for myself. Never was much of a tournament player but I did once have a rulebook or two and read them cover to cover.
Now on to the meat of the matter. No way can "random" and "pattern" be stretched to mean the same thing. Pattern racking is common as dirt and I can pattern rack as I throw balls in the rack. That doesn't make it legal though! "Random" means just that. You should be able to throw the balls in a rack blindfolded then only move the one, the eight, possibly one corner ball as required. While I like alternating stripes and solids, that is not random racking.
Random racking will sometimes give an edge to a group of balls, nature of the beast. Looking things over, pattern racking is fairer, if defined such as the alternating outside balls. Pattern racking to give one group an advantage when you are racking and breaking is BS!
I really think that at this level of pool development all games that it matters, 6,8,9,10, and a few outliers like three and four ball, pattern racking should be required with the only variation being mirror image for left hand breakers.
There is no way to enforce random racking. I can always get at least thirteen out of fifteen balls where I want them and usually all fifteen while seeming to be random racking. If random racking can't be enforced, a set pattern can be and that is what should be done.
Some argue that random racking means put the balls where you want them. Nothing random about that!
Corey's rack and break appears illegal and is according to old rules. Somebody trying to streamline rules took out some things I suspect. While Corey badly bends rules when he can, I have never seen him break any. Were I an official and requiring a headball break wasn't in eight ball rules, I would give one warning and then an unsportsmanlike call. First unsportsmanlike costs a game, second a match.
One of Corey's more interesting maneuvers was to pull everything beyond the first two rows back playing one pocket at the DCC somewhere around 2006, might have been a year either way. Slug rack city and apparently legal at the time as he made no effort to hide it.
I didn't notice a rule change but something must have been said, he wasn't doing it the next year even though it had taken him to the semi's with over three hundred players in the event.
Hu
yea thats racking without a neutral person. part of the game. when we racked for our opponent you got in trouble giving a loose rack, plus a tight rack the balls dont open as much in onepocket, so you tilted it a tiny bit and if he didn't realize it his break in one pocket suffered, don't worry he did it back to you as well.
The word "random" is a misnomer. Any pattern can be the result of a "random" rack, and each pattern is equally likely. APA changed the wording in their rules from "random order" to "any order" years ago to eliminate silly arguments about whether the racker did it randomly. As Hu suggests, one could define the "fairest" pattern for each game and require the balls be racked in that pattern, but that's still a pattern that someone, given sufficient time, will be able to use to their advantage. Maybe that's ok, as it is a skill that can differentiate one player from another, but so is changing up the arrangement of the balls in the rack. No matter what the rule is, someone will find a way to use it to their advantage. Even with the "opponent loads the rack" rule, it's easy to imagine someone who is racking for a weak breaker loading the rack to be unfair, knowing they will most likely get the first shot after the break.
It's random the first time. The wording is fine; people just don't do it. You can add me to the list of people who don't care how people arrange the balls as long as they are tight and the breaker follows the breaking rules. It drives me crazy when people finger the balls and pretend they are "just trying to get them frozen."