Its called sarcasm. Lighten up.
One Pocket Rules
- Thread starter darmoose
- Start date
In that example yes (which was the situation addressed in your opening post?) but there are many other situations where taking a scratch would be a preferred course of action (e.g. where you want to protect balls near your pocket but the angle to go behind the stack off a ball is not there, or if someone lays a really good break on you and the only good option is to go uptable and leave the op straight in or doubled up but again the angle to go off a ball is not there, or the most common of them all - if there is a ball in front of your opponent’s pocket that you can’t see and you want to roll up behind that ball off one/two/three cushions but fail to find another cushion after contact or miss the ball completely). I do think that having to shoot a different shot rather than taking a scratch in the first two examples takes a bit of strategy away from the game.
P.S. If I am not mistaken, under the old 9-ball rules it was a pushout on every turn at the table unless called safe? So if the op misses a ball and gets it hooked/safe, you can put him back to shoot again
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
do you think the better player is waiting for the opportunity to do that on purpose??
my impression is intentionals are usually taken when there is nothing else.
going in the weaker player knows the rules and what could happen.
maybe to be "more fair" the better player should just give up the nuts so he can play an intentional when necessary........
this is a free country and you can do as you please as long as it is legal and does not harm anyone.
just seems to me alot of time and discussion on this was done on onepocket.org
and your proposal was not accepted to officially change the rules
so to me you have decided to bring your ball to a different sand box because your idea was not endorsed "over there"
you have every right to keep searching for a forum that agrees with you....
yes i agree you have every perogative to do as you please
You're all acting like you can force your opponent to foul at will. If you're giving up a spot and you put your opponent somewhere he has to take a foul, good for you. You earned some breathing room with good shot selection and CB control.
If you're getting a spot and you don't want to trade fouls and get further from your goal, maybe don't play the intentional foul, and find another shot. If they sewed you up so well you can't find a way to make a legal hit without selling out, they earned that -1 on your score. If that means you can't beat them, I guess you need a bigger spot, or more practice.
If you're getting a spot and you don't want to trade fouls and get further from your goal, maybe don't play the intentional foul, and find another shot. If they sewed you up so well you can't find a way to make a legal hit without selling out, they earned that -1 on your score. If that means you can't beat them, I guess you need a bigger spot, or more practice.
But, but... you didn't use the official AZ sarcasm font.
Lou Figueroa
how was I to know?
Last edited:
Damn skippy. Well put.
I think part of the issue is that multiple intentionals can (and often is) be used as a strategy to put a win completely out of the reach of the lesser player getting a spot.
In a way, it skews the game much like making a ball on the break. You make a ball on the break it often means the other guy has little to no chance of winning that particular game because basically the breaker is getting the break and then a chance to run balls AND THEN put their opponent in a trap.
I'm not so sure that reigning in intentionals is such a bad idea.
Lou Figueroa
this is a free country and you can do as you please as long as it is legal and does not harm anyone.
just seems to me alot of time and discussion on this was done on onepocket.org
and your proposal was not accepted to officially change the rules
so to me you have decided to bring your ball to a different sand box because your idea was not endorsed "over there"
you have every right to keep searching for a forum that agrees with you....
yes i agree you have every perogative to do as you please
I nor you are aware of any rule suggestions made on OP.org that have been agreed to and instituted into the games official rules. The fact that so many OP players are old geezers (like me) and have traditional values that don't easily allow for changes is not reason to banish discussion, do you thnk.
This forum is not going to rewrite the OP rules or even influence then most likely of course. It is just a conversation, Larry, but thanks for permission to speak, I appreciate it.
Lou,
You obviously have a better understanding of OP and the situaton I am describing than most. I am not surprised as you often bring a higher level of experience and reason to discussions. I am not sure it is possible to get the lesser experienced players to fully grasp the inequity of the current rules, which in gambling matches favor the better player, but we try.:thumbup:
I understand that exchanging intentionals can put the game out of reach for the lesser player, but unlike making a ball on the break, BOTH players are complicit in exchanging fouls. If the exchange favors the better player so heavily, the lesser player should have tried for a good hit instead of fouling back. If the position of the balls makes that utterly infeasible, then kudos to the better player for trapping his opponent so effectively. Shouldn't there be a reward?
It's true that the player would have to be more creative when playing intentionals. He would have to figure out a shot that his opponent would be unwilling to pass back.
It would help to have a specific example. Anything on video?
It is always a danger when changing the rules that you may have unintended consequences. That is, the rule may come in at other times when you didn't really intend for it to be applied, or some clever player figures out how to turn the rule into a weapon. Have you thought about those? (Where is Corey when you need him?:wink
Thanks for the compliment, moose.
As you know, 1pocket came about as a kind of prop game, "a hustlers game" is what Mosconi called it. So it should not come as a surprise that it comes to us with a few trap doors built in that hustlers, or at least better players, can exploit.
Less experienced players sometimes don't appreciate the finer points of matching up and some of the pitfalls that exist in the game. I'm not saying I'm an expert but I've seen a lot of stuff to include seeing high speed players taking intentionals with gay abandon because they know it is more to their benefit than the poor soul they're playing.
Lou Figueroa
That is not so -- it is not always tit-for-tat.
A better player can chose to roll the CB to a position on the table from which it will be very difficult for a lesser player to provide an adequate response. He doesn't even need to be escaping a trap to decide to do this. Totally worth a ball if it's going to lead to a screw up.
Lou Figueroa
Last edited:
It's true that the player would have to be more creative when playing intentionals. He would have to figure out a shot that his opponent would be unwilling to pass back.
It would help to have a specific example. Anything on video?
It is always a danger when changing the rules that you may have unintended consequences. That is, the rule may come in at other times when you didn't really intend for it to be applied, or some clever player figures out how to turn the rule into a weapon. Have you thought about those? (Where is Corey when you need him?:wink
er... if we could anticipate all the consequences then there wouldn't be any unintended consequences but that's not possible so by definition you can't anticipate them and there will always be unintended consequences.
Lou Figueroa
or something
like that
Ratamon,
You are correct that there are times when one would want to lag behind some balls. I would do nothing to stop that or any other legal shot you would want to make. If you get a rail after contact the shot is legal, if not it is illegal and i should not be disadvantaged by your illegal shot. Nor should you be able to change the spot from 9/7 to 11/9 by taking illegal shots either.
The whole point of games is to foster legal, not illegal shots. This seems so fundamental and simple and today's rules are flawed. Intentional fouls should be discouraged, not rewarded at the expense of properly played legal shots by the opponent.
do you think the better player is waiting for the opportunity to do that on purpose??
my impression is intentionals are usually taken when there is nothing else.
going in the weaker player knows the rules and what could happen.
maybe to be "more fair" the better player should just give up the nuts so he can play an intentional when necessary........
Larry,
Of course not, however he never does it accidently or other than "on purpose". He only does it when he needs to do it, obviously.
There is NEVER a situation where there is NOTHING else. There is ALWAYS an alternative shot. He just doesn't like the alternative shot, nor the risk required in taking that shot. He PREFERS to take and intentional, even two, hoping to get the opponent to do likewise, which changes the game and increases his chances of winning.
No one is asking anyone to give up the nuts. Just suggesting that this unfair escape hatch favoring the better player might should be addressed.
Do you play OP, you should be able to understand the point, even if you don't like to consider any change
I take it that you either have never played straight pool or you think the rules there should be revised as well.
How about at nine ball where sometimes the best play is to take the foul and tie up some high balls? Should the incoming player get two turns?
As for "today's rules", they have been that way for about a hundred years. Intentionals have been part of the game for a long, long time.
Bob,
I appreciate that you had at least a partially open mind in your earlier post #53. When thinking about this I thought about how we used to play push out nine ball before TV ruined that game. I could have suggested that you only get the option to return the shot when the opponent committed an intentional foul, but I didn't, because that would require subjective consideration about intent, never a good idea. I decided that ALL fouls should be treated the same.
On fouls where a rail is not obtained after contact (whether deliberate or accidental) the option would apply. Other fouls like a pocket scratch the option also applies, although it is unlikely that the incoming player would give up BIH behind the line. On any other "touch" fouls that are being played the option would apply.
The only exception I would propose is the situation at the end of some games where the game ball is hanging for one player, the rule played today is in effect, so that after pocketing that ball and scratching, or if balls are bounced off the table multiple balls would be spotted as is dne today with NO option applied.
I would not bet my life there cold not be any unintended consequences, but I can't think of any, if you can please bring them up.
Thanks for the input.:smile:
P.S. as for 14.1 I find that game too boring, never have played it, and I quit playing nine ball when they ruined it with Texas express, sorry, that's just me.
Last edited: