One Pocket Rules

bbb · Jan 31, 2020

darmoose said:
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 :rolleyes:

darrell
i do play one pocket
the weaker player is always at a disadvantage
thats why he is getting a spot ...DUH
if the players were equal
so then it would be ok to take an intentional??
just askin.......:grin-square:

lfigueroa · Jan 31, 2020

Bob Jewett said:
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.

I play 14.1 and believe this is a different situation.

And you should know better than to use an "Appeal to Tradition."

Lou Figueroa
not logical

Patrick Johnson · Jan 31, 2020

darmoose said:
The whole point of games is to foster legal, not illegal shots.

Sounds like semantics to me. If intentional fouls are permitted then they're "legal" by definition, even though they're called fouls and come at a cost. The question is do they make the game better or worse.

pj
chgo

lfigueroa · Jan 31, 2020

Patrick Johnson said:
Sounds like semantics to me. If intentional fouls are permitted then they're "legal" by definition, even though they're called fouls and come at a cost. The question is do they make the game better or worse.

pj
chgo

Of course they are legal.

However, just as the ball on the break rule, it is something that may need tweaking to make it a better/fairer contest.

Lou Figueroa

bbb · Feb 1, 2020

In tennis if a players shot hits the net and dribbles over so that player wins the point
And possibly the game on an unintentional shot
Thats not fair to his opponent
In tennis they dont replay the point or give the point to the opponent
Just sayin

lfigueroa · Feb 1, 2020

bbb said:
In tennis if a players shot hits the net and dribbles over so that player wins the point
And possibly the game on an unintentional shot
Thats not fair to his opponent
In tennis they dont replay the point or give the point to the opponent
Just sayin

We are discussing intentional shots not unintentional shots.

Lou Figueroa
just sayin'

alphadog · Feb 1, 2020

lfigueroa said:
We are discussing intentional shots not unintentional shots.

Lou Figueroa
just sayin'

So where do you divide the line between unintentional and intentional? I graze a ball coming out of the stack but leave cueball 1/4" short of a cushion,unintentional? What if I leave cueball 3 ' shy of contacting a rail?

Fouls help stronger players period.
lets say you adapt a rule: Any foul allows incoming player to remove a ball from the table and that ball scores for them.
I take a intentional into stack because youhave balls you can run and I cant play a solid safety. You pick up a ball and now have to
1.kick at 1 of your object balls.
2. Try a not so safe safety.
3. Take a intentional and I pick1 ball and score it.

FOULS are part of the game

darmoose · Feb 1, 2020

bbb said:
In tennis if a players shot hits the net and dribbles over so that player wins the point
And possibly the game on an unintentional shot
Thats not fair to his opponent
In tennis they dont replay the point or give the point to the opponent
Just sayin

Larrrry............

Why in the world is it unfair? Doesn't the same rule apply to his opponent?

Now, back to pool(OP)........... I have not recommended REPLAYING the shot, noe have I suggested giving the point or a ball to the opponents..........so I don't get it, sorry.

I am kinda surprised you didn't delete this............

darmoose · Feb 1, 2020

alphadog said:
So where do you divide the line between unintentional and intentional? I graze a ball coming out of the stack but leave cueball 1/4" short of a cushion,unintentional? What if I leave cueball 3 ' shy of contacting a rail?

Fouls help stronger players period.
lets say you adapt a rule: Any foul allows incoming player to remove a ball from the table and that ball scores for them.
I take a intentional into stack because youhave balls you can run and I cant play a solid safety. You pick up a ball and now have to
1.kick at 1 of your object balls.
2. Try a not so safe safety.
3. Take a intentional and I pick1 ball and score it.

FOULS are part of the game

My suggested rule to allow the incoming player the option to return the shot to the player who committed the foul does NOT distinguish between intentional and unintentional fouls. It applies across the board and to ALL fouls. The one and only exception is the end game situation already described.

You are correct that fouls are part of the game and they help stronger players, period. I am not trying to eliminate fouls of any kind, just trying to keep them form unfairly rewarding one player over the other. that seems pretty simple to me.

bbb · Feb 1, 2020

why are you trying to help the weaker player at the detriment of the stronger player??
maybe the weaker player just needs a bigger spot??
that would negate the need for more/changing rules
thats also part of matching up
jmho
icbw

darmoose · Feb 1, 2020

bbb said:
why are you trying to help the weaker player at the detriment of the stronger player??
maybe the weaker player just needs a bigger spot??
that would negate the need for more/changing rules
thats also part of matching up
jmho
icbw

Larry,

I am not trying to help the weaker player at the expense of the stronger player. I am trying to remove intentional "touch" fouls being rewarded in situations where there is a spot involved.

Why do you want to reward intentional "touch" fouls and provide a potential advantage to a superior player giving up a spot, aside from it's been that way for a hundred years?

I think as someone said earlier, players will figure out how to use a rule if it is not well thought out. The use of intentional "touch" fouls to change the game is an unintended consequence of the current rules of OP.

Rules are not sacred to never be rethought, nor should they be changed without thoughtful consideration exactly because unintended consequences can be harmful.

This solution is a simple matter and change that would improve the game in several ways. It would shorten the game and all but eliminate "touch" fouls that ad nothing to the game.

If you think about the times the option would be used, it is not that often. You either get it or you don't I guess.

Ratamon · Feb 2, 2020

darmoose said:
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.

Where a spot is involved, this is very easy to fix by agreeing to cancel out the fouls so I do not necessarily agree with this point.

From my experience, the tap fouls are used very rarely as they do not improve the fouler’s position (quite the opposite as most of the times tapping the CB means you are on the wrong side of the stack so the incoming player can push-foul and move a few balls to his side without selling out). In most cases, one would use intentionals to either go behind the stack or go uptable, such that tapping the CB back is usually not an option.

Knowing how to match up with a stronger player is all that’s required here!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bbb · Feb 2, 2020

darmoose said:
Larrrry............

Why in the world is it unfair? Doesn't the same rule apply to his opponent?

Now, back to pool(OP)........... I have not recommended REPLAYING the shot, noe have I suggested giving the point or a ball to the opponents..........so I don't get it, sorry.

I am kinda surprised you didn't delete this............

darmoose said:
Larry,

I am not trying to help the weaker player at the expense of the stronger player. I am trying to remove intentional "touch" fouls being rewarded in situations where there is a spot involved.

Why do you want to reward intentional "touch" fouls and provide a potential advantage to a superior player giving up a spot, aside from it's been that way for a hundred years?

I think as someone said earlier, players will figure out how to use a rule if it is not well thought out. The use of intentional "touch" fouls to change the game is an unintended consequence of the current rules of OP.

Rules are not sacred to never be rethought, nor should they be changed without thoughtful consideration exactly because unintended consequences can be harmful.

This solution is a simple matter and change that would improve the game in several ways. It would shorten the game and all but eliminate "touch" fouls that ad nothing to the game.

If you think about the times the option would be used, it is not that often. You either get it or you don't I guess.

why would i delete it????

why dont you let the players agree to the rules they play by rather than trying to mandate it??
in gambling isnt anything both players agree to allowed???
if thats true there is no need for a new RULE.
jmho
i know you think i am wrong.....

garczar · Feb 2, 2020

darmoose said:
Larry,

I am not trying to help the weaker player at the expense of the stronger player. I am trying to remove intentional "touch" fouls being rewarded in situations where there is a spot involved.

Why do you want to reward intentional "touch" fouls and provide a potential advantage to a superior player giving up a spot, aside from it's been that way for a hundred years?

I think as someone said earlier, players will figure out how to use a rule if it is not well thought out. The use of intentional "touch" fouls to change the game is an unintended consequence of the current rules of OP.

Rules are not sacred to never be rethought, nor should they be changed without thoughtful consideration exactly because unintended consequences can be harmful.

This solution is a simple matter and change that would improve the game in several ways. It would shorten the game and all but eliminate "touch" fouls that ad nothing to the game.

If you think about the times the option would be used, it is not that often. You either get it or you don't I guess.

Not all intentional fouls are touch/tap fouls. I'm not a fan of those myself. Should have to strike CB with a forward motion and hitting it with the tip. Intentional just means on purpose not just these funky "tap" fouls.

darmoose · Feb 2, 2020

Andrew Manning said:
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?

I"m sorry. It seems your logic is flawed. You are happy with the player getting rewarded for simply "tapping" the CB exactly where the other player left him after playing a legal (valid) shot? But, where is the reward for the player who actually made the initial legal or valid shot that put your boy in trouble? He actually deserves a reward, not the other guy who simple tapped the CB.

darmoose · Feb 2, 2020

bbb said:
why would i delete it????
why dont you let the players agree to the rules they play by rather than trying to mandate it??
in gambling isnt anything both players agree to allowed???
if thats true there is no need for a new RULE.
jmho
i know you think i am wrong.....

Larry,

If you wanna leave things to a negotiation between the two players, we do not need any rules at all, right. Brilliant.

We have rules for every game, and I am not trying to mandate anything. I am trying to make a suggestion that makes perfect sense, and there is no inherent reason that the rules of any game can't be changed, improved, especially where there exists an unintended consequence that favors one player over another.

I have asked many to explain why intentional "tap" fouls ad anything to the game. I am not talking about other intentional fouls that I do believe are worthwhile, only the "tap" fouls. Perhaps you would try as well as enumerate what would be lost be eliminating them

Yes, I do think u are wrong. Opinions without reasons are fairly useless.

garczar · Feb 2, 2020

darmoose said:
Larry,

If you wanna leave things to a negotiation between the two players, we do not need any rules at all, right. Brilliant.

We have rules for every game, and I am not trying to mandate anything. I am trying to make a suggestion that makes perfect sense, and there is no inherent reason that the rules of any game can't be changed, improved, especially where there exists an unintended consequence that favors one player over another.

I have asked many to explain why intentional "tap" fouls ad anything to the game. I am not talking about other intentional fouls that I do believe are worthwhile, only the "tap" fouls. Perhaps you would try as well as enumerate what would be lost be eliminating them

Yes, I do think u are wrong. Opinions without reasons are fairly useless.

You might want to have your own event with your rules. Seriously doubt anything you put on 1p.org or here is going to change anything. I tend to agree on the tap fouls but getting this to be a universal rule is very unlikely to happen.

darmoose · Feb 2, 2020

garczar said:
You might want to have your own event with your rules. Seriously doubt anything you put on 1p.org or here is going to change anything. I tend to agree on the tap fouls but getting this to be a universal rule is very unlikely to happen.

That may be true. But, how do you think any rule change gets started or done. Just recently the "rerack" rule has been implemented. There have been several rules changes made to various pool games over the years.

I would prefer people to opine, like you just did,that you agree that "tap" fouls ad nothing positive to the game and should be disincentivized, and just leave it at that. We will see where it goes, if anywhere, over time. I am NO pollyanna that thinks a rule will change overnight.

I hear people say tap fouls are an important part of the game and would be missed, and I ask how so, pls explain what they ad. So, far there is very little offered as to their value.

Ratamon · Feb 2, 2020

darmoose said:
That may be true. But, how do you think any rule change gets started or done. Just recently the "rerack" rule has been implemented. There have been several rules changes made to various pool games over the years.

I would prefer people to opine, like you just did,that you agree that "tap" fouls ad nothing positive to the game and should be disincentivized, and just leave it at that. We will see where it goes, if anywhere, over time. I am NO pollyanna that thinks a rule will change overnight.

I hear people say tap fouls are an important part of the game and would be missed, and I ask how so, pls explain what they ad. So, far there is very little offered as to their value.

Cancelling out the owed balls could be the way to go as this requires a very minor change to the existing rules and does not put a weaker player at a disadvantage in most cases. I agree that “tap” fouls are not ideal. For some reason I thought you proposed to penalise all fouls

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

darmoose · Feb 2, 2020

Ratamon said:
Cancelling out the owed balls could be the way to go as this requires a very minor change to the existing rules and does not put a weaker player at a disadvantage in most cases. I agree that “tap” fouls are not ideal. For some reason I thought you proposed to penalise all fouls

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Appreciate your thought. The option that I am suggesting could apply to any foul whether a pocket scratch or failing to get a rail after contact or anything else. I don't consider the option a penalty, but rather a sort of protection for the incoming player after a foul is committed. The incoming player can return the table to the player who committed the foul, so he is not unfairly penalized or disadvantaged by the other player invalid or illegal shot (which he took because he was in a bad spot after a valid or legal shot.

I considered your thought about cancelling out owed balls, but in the case where we are in the middle of the game where each player has balls, the intentional "tap" foul would just remove 2 balls from each player and have the same effect as changing the spot from say 9/7 to 11/9 for example.

One Pocket Rules

AzB Gold Member

AzB Silver Member

Fish of the Day

AzB Silver Member

AzB Gold Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Shutin@urhole is OVERATED

Shutin@urhole is OVERATED

AzB Gold Member

Shutin@urhole is OVERATED

AzB Silver Member

AzB Gold Member

AzB Silver Member

Shutin@urhole is OVERATED

Shutin@urhole is OVERATED

AzB Silver Member

Shutin@urhole is OVERATED

AzB Silver Member

Shutin@urhole is OVERATED