Shane's mystery game???

rocketceo said:

Well, after watching perhaps 8,749,759 games of 9-ball, this is the first time I've seen this. At 15:06 Shane breaks and makes TWO balls, perfectly legal and ordinary. Then Shane shrugs and makes a face like he did something wrong (when he didn't), and he sits down. His opponent --- already out of his chair --- takes the next shot. Referee says nothing. No discussion at all, so all three were immediately on the same page that Shane's inning was over. But why??? What in blazes happened????????? (All I can think of is some goofy rule specific to that tournament.)

https://youtu.be/cX89PL7memQ

Click to expand...

Non compliant break according to the 3 point breaking rules they now have

3 balls must pass the head string or be pocketed

rocketceo said:

Well, after watching perhaps 8,749,759 games of 9-ball, this is the first time I've seen this. At 15:06 Shane breaks and makes TWO balls, perfectly legal and ordinary. Then Shane shrugs and makes a face like he did something wrong (when he didn't), and he sits down. His opponent --- already out of his chair --- takes the next shot. Referee says nothing. No discussion at all, so all three were immediately on the same page that Shane's inning was over. But why??? What in blazes happened????????? (All I can think of is some goofy rule specific to that tournament.)

https://youtu.be/cX89PL7memQ

Click to expand...

Three balls have to cross the balk line or go in a pocket.

terryhanna said:

Non compliant break according to the 3 point breaking rules they now have

3 balls must pass the head string or be pocketed

Click to expand...

Same rules they use in almost all of the international events now including Pat Flemings event that just finished.

Can someone explain why it’s not a 2-point system or why the cueball doesn’t count in a 3-point system? Has that already been tried and exploited?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MattPoland said:

Can someone explain why it’s not a 2-point system or why the cueball doesn’t count in a 3-point system? Has that already been tried and exploited?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

It's a bad rule to begin with. They should have used the side pockets if 3 balls, or 2 balls past the line. Too many good breaks are marked "illegal" with this silly thing. Seems everyone knows it's a bad idea except the people making up the rules to these things.

MattPoland said:

Can someone explain why it’s not a 2-point system or why the cueball doesn’t count in a 3-point system? Has that already been tried and exploited?

Click to expand...

The purpose of the rule (if its the rule I'm thinking of) is to prevent the soft break because then it turns into too much of a soft "trick" breaking match instead of a pool match, and it gets real boring watching soft breaks followed by nice easy (and usually very similar) layouts over and over that don't take much skill to run out. The concern if they only require two balls to cross the line is that people can still break relatively soft and manage to get two balls across the line. The cue ball can't count as one of the balls because it is too easy to still soft break and make the cue ball cross the line as third ball (draw it back or have it go several rails). Three object balls having to cross the line (and/or be pocketed) is about the minimum to ensure that you are forced to have to break the balls pretty firmly. The trade off in this is that on occasion, through no fault of the player's, 3 balls will still fail to cross the line even with great hard breaks.

So on the one hand you don't have to have the three point rule but you will likely get plenty of soft breaking which makes it extremely boring to watch and takes too much of the skill out of the game, or you have the three point rule which makes for a more skilled and exciting game but you end up having people get illegal breaks on occasion through just sheer bad luck and no fault of their own. Neither is ideal and both have draw backs. People debate which they prefer and there are some on both sides.

Poolplaya9 said:

The purpose of the rule (if its the rule I'm thinking of) is to prevent the soft break because then it turns into too much of a soft "trick" breaking match instead of a pool match, and it gets real boring watching soft breaks followed by nice easy (and usually very similar) layouts over and over that don't take much skill to run out. The concern if they only require two balls to cross the line is that people can still break relatively soft and manage to get two balls across the line. The cue ball can't count as one of the balls because it is too easy to still soft break and make the cue ball cross the line as third ball (draw it back or have it go several rails). Three object balls having to cross the line (and/or be pocketed) is about the minimum to ensure that you are forced to have to break the balls pretty firmly. The trade off in this is that on occasion, through no fault of the player's, 3 balls will still fail to cross the line even with great hard breaks.

So on the one hand you don't have to have the three point rule but you will likely get plenty of soft breaking which makes it extremely boring to watch and takes too much of the skill out of the game, or you have the three point rule which makes for a more skilled and exciting game but you end up having people get illegal breaks on occasion through just sheer bad luck and no fault of their own. Neither is ideal and both have draw backs. People debate which they prefer and there are some on both sides.

Click to expand...

We can thank Corey Deuel for this rule.

On a diamond with 860 on it, 3 balls past the line or pocketed is seldom an issue.

It's very easy to get 3 ball across which is why its seldom a problem at the pro level.

At amateur events, well, let's just say the opposite is usually true. Which is why it is seldom enforced in small amateur tournaments that I've seen.

I like the following rules for break:

9 ball = 9 on spot, break in box, 3 ball cross line or pocketed, no money on break.

10 ball = break out of box, 4 balls cross or pocketed, no money on break.

IMO, the above is better suited for pro level players and has a higher chance of having safety battles in games which is always the best part to me.

It's not extremely difficult to break and run which, to me, makes it less exciting to watch. On the other hand, seeing someone get three fouled is a thing of beauty.

I wish more amateur tournaments enforced 3 foul like they use to.

Rake

hang-the-9 said:

It's a bad rule to begin with. They should have used the side pockets if 3 balls, or 2 balls past the line. Too many good breaks are marked "illegal" with this silly thing. Seems everyone knows it's a bad idea except the people making up the rules to these things.

Click to expand...

This rule was instituted by Matchroom for their events and it quickly got rid of the soft break. The only problem now is that occasionally a player will break hard and still be non compliant. Yes, it happens. The failure to make a compliant break is not a killer though like scratching on the break is. The incoming player does not get BIH and has to either accept the table as they lay or give the turn back to the breaker. I've seen the latter happen several times already. One more thing, there is no 'push-out' following a non compliant break.

jay helfert said:

This rule was instituted by Matchroom for their events and it quickly got rid of the soft break. The only problem now is that occasionally a player will break hard and still be non compliant. Yes, it happens. The failure to make a compliant break is not a killer though like scratching on the break is. The incoming player does not get BIH and has to either accept the table as they lay or give the turn back to the breaker. I've seen the latter happen several times already. One more thing, there is no 'push-out' following a non compliant break.

Click to expand...

In a reffed match, the ref should be able to overrule when a no-doubt hard break has been made regardless of where the balls go. Same thing in call-the-nine-The ref should be able to declare that the 9 has been made in the intended pocket on a non bank etc shot. JMHO

Rule is because of SELF pattern racking with template. With a Ref random racking this rule is dumb.

jay helfert said:

This rule was instituted by Matchroom for their events and it quickly got rid of the soft break. The only problem now is that occasionally a player will break hard and still be non compliant. Yes, it happens. The failure to make a compliant break is not a killer though like scratching on the break is. The incoming player does not get BIH and has to either accept the table as they lay or give the turn back to the breaker. I've seen the latter happen several times already. One more thing, there is no 'push-out' following a non compliant break.

Click to expand...

If the "fix" causes new issues that did not exist before, it's not a very good fix. They can figure out a way to prevent patter racking soft breaks with no or less new issues. Having someone clearly break at a decent speed and getting an illegal break due to luck is as bad as cheating the rack. What is that thing about law, I'd rather see 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man get punished or something like that? Same thing here.

Making the line for the balls at side pockets should help, I would think that would reduce the number of illegal breaks by 90%. Nothing like making a ball then being told you have to turn the table over. And not being able to push out, you make a ball, get an illegal break, are hooked, and now you have to kick. Nice reward for making a ball.

The future solution.



Jeff Livingston

Poolplaya9 said:

The purpose of the rule (if its the rule I'm thinking of) is to prevent the soft break because then it turns into too much of a soft "trick" breaking match instead of a pool match, and it gets real boring watching soft breaks followed by nice easy (and usually very similar) layouts over and over that don't take much skill to run out. The concern if they only require two balls to cross the line is that people can still break relatively soft and manage to get two balls across the line. The cue ball can't count as one of the balls because it is too easy to still soft break and make the cue ball cross the line as third ball (draw it back or have it go several rails). Three object balls having to cross the line (and/or be pocketed) is about the minimum to ensure that you are forced to have to break the balls pretty firmly. The trade off in this is that on occasion, through no fault of the player's, 3 balls will still fail to cross the line even with great hard breaks.

So on the one hand you don't have to have the three point rule but you will likely get plenty of soft breaking which makes it extremely boring to watch and takes too much of the skill out of the game, or you have the three point rule which makes for a more skilled and exciting game but you end up having people get illegal breaks on occasion through just sheer bad luck and no fault of their own. Neither is ideal and both have draw backs. People debate which they prefer and there are some on both sides.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing. I understand the intent. I’ve seen the videos of Corey soft breaking. From what I saw, a 2-point system or a 3-point (counting cueball) seems enough to undermine what he was doing. That’s where I wonder if a full 3-point system was implemented because of other practices witnessed in real tournament conditions that I haven’t seen video for, or if the additional concerns are merely hypothetical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WoodyMPW said:

Rule is because of SELF pattern racking with template. With a Ref random racking this rule is dumb.

Click to expand...

There’s layers there. The rule is due to soft breaking with a template because that can make the game too easy. Yes, adding the pattern to the rack makes it even easier. But the soft break on random balls in a template is still problem enough to be addressed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nostroke said:

In a reffed match, the ref should be able to overrule when a no-doubt hard break has been made regardless of where the balls go.

Click to expand...

You know what they say about common sense these days...

I like the rule because it minimizes the artsy fartsy break stuff. In 10 ball I don't like it as much because you can slam the rack and not get 3 balls above the headstring.

So the purpose of the illegal-break rule is to prevent the game from being corrupted in one way or another by soft breaks.

In this just-concluded International 9-Ball event, I counted 99 illegal breaks in the 40 streamed matches. That was 1 illegal break out of every 7 breaks. Looking at just the breaks that were not dry or fouled, it was 1 illegal break out of every 9.

I don't recall a single one of those 99 breaks that I would classify as soft.

We have traded one type of "corruption" for another.

-----------------

Here's some more background information on this situation, using data from the streamed matches each year.

In the 2015 US Open 9-Ball event, the 3-point rule used the side pockets for measuring whether the break was legal, and illegal breaks were just 4% of the total.

In the 2016 US Open, the rule was changed to using the head string, and balls had to pass the head string (base of ball) to be counted. The result was that illegal breaks jumped enormously to 20% of all breaks.

In the 2017 US Open, the head string was still used for the determination, but a ball only needed to touch it to be counted. I.e., if the edge of a ball touched the vertical plane rising from the head string, it counted. The result was that illegal breaks were cut in half -- 10% of all breaks.

So, for 2017, the measuring line was essentially moved half a ball's width closer to the rack and the results changed a lot. And we had 3 different versions of the rule in the 3 successive years.

For the 2018 International 9-Ball, they used the same rule as for the 2017 US Open, and illegal breaks rose to 14%.