New US Open Break Rules

There is a lot going on here

sfleinen said:

Robin:

Paul is a fan of getting rid of the requirement for "slopping in a ball off the break" in order to maintain the right to stay at the table. In other words, the breaker stays at the table irrespective if a ball was made on the break or not. The concept of breaking such that an "easy layout" is the result has been the bane of soft-breaking and "rack mechanics" for years (nothing new). That's fixed easily with a requirement for hard breaks, and randomizing the rack.

9-ball is a game with inherent luck "built-in." Meaning, the only requirement is that you must contact the lowest-numbered object ball on the table with the cue ball, and then either pocket an object ball or get a rail. There has never been call-shot rules in 9-ball like there traditionally has been in 8-ball, straight pool, bank pool, etc. Unlike those games I just mentioned, in 9-ball you literally can get away with tactics like poke-and-hope, slam-ball, etc. (although the banger won't go far with those tactics against a good player).

With that in mind, I think it's putting lipstick on a pig to try and remove the slopped ball on the break, but yet keep the "no call shot, anything goes" aspect of 9-ball. We're trying to "fix" a game that, for pros, is broken to begin with. Most pro-level rotation tournaments that I see, are 10-ball.

Now, if Paul were advocating for getting rid of the slopped ball requirement off the break for 10-ball, such that the breaker stays at the table irrespective if a ball was made on the break or not, I think he'd be onto something. Here's a call-shot game, but yet a slopped ball off the break determines if the breaker stays at the table, which, if you think about it compared to the "concept" of call-shot games, is counter-intuitive. And, it's 10-ball that has is creeping up on the game of 9-ball for the notoriety of building "rack mechanics."

Summary (IMHO): Paul's idea is great for 10-ball. Not for 9-ball, though.

-Sean

Click to expand...

Sean,
I got ya on your post. In my minds eye I have to think about the changes made to 9 ball from the older rules and now we have the results of some of that. We have rack mechanics because the rack really does matter in this new game. I like 10 ball very much as both a amateur or pro game but 9 ball is better suited for amateur play. Even at the amateur level people are breaking and running out often so amateurs are getting better even though there may be less players than when the 9 ball rules were changed.

Amateurs need a chance at the table especially in a double elimination format and I think some changes to that game would help the popularity of it.

Regardless of any rule changes overall there is no one saying you have to play by this rule or that ,its something that tournament directors are in charge of, players can consent to play by the rules or not.

I like the jist of what Paul is saying and that is don't punish someone for not setting up a trick shot and making it to start out with an advantage. Even in regular play the rack keeps coming up and people hardly rack for each other anymore because of it.

I think leveling the chances out some would help 9 ball.

I played in a Friday night event last week and it was straight up no handicaps. The best rose to the top as usual even in handicapped events but the wonderful thing that happened is that the lower players, played harder and a lot of them won one of their first two matches before running into better players.

I like anything that takes us back to non handicap and leveling up some of the chances at running out a rack out.

I think that once a handicapper plays a few non handicap events as long as he has chances invoked by harder play, the luck of the draw and perhaps a rule change that gives him a few more chances we might could see a trend that people wont scream about handicaps so much and might actually start to practice what cost them getting beaten in the last tournament they played in.

I do understand what you wrote and you make good points. Sometimes change is good and sometimes you find out that the changes made weren't as good as you thought they were when things end up different. I think we are there with 9 ball now and some experimenting is going to need to happen before more changes are made otherwise we are going to end up with a situation like 8 balls endless rules and how its different everywhere you go.

The 1 thing I do not like about alt break, with good players many, many matches go hill-hill. It makes for a very long tourny.

Paul Schofield said:

The new rules are a giant leap forward. The “wired ball” or “trick shot” has largely been rendered moot by the 9 on the spot and the break-box. Now we are down to the remaining “slopped ball”.

It has often been said that at the top levels, the break is the most critical shot of the game. Now the ball-on-the-break is nothing more than a slop shot. I have watched hours of dry breaks and slopped balls. The best players in the world are starting every game with a slop shot, slamming the balls and praying. This was the intent of the tournament operators. Was it not? If two top players are playing well, the outcome of their match will be determined by lucked balls. Is this really the desired outcome?

Get rid of the slopped ball! Alternate breaks and shoot what you break. It will make for better completion and advantage for the better player. The person that plays better deserves to win.

Click to expand...

Huh? The break had always meant to provide a random start. It's just fairl recently that player began to micromanage the break shot. The closer we can get back to a random start-the better. You want balls to be called on the break?

Nostroke said:

Huh? The break had always meant to provide a random start. It's just fairl recently that player began to micromanage the break shot. The closer we can get back to a random start-the better. You want balls to be called on the break?

Click to expand...

Very well said. These changes make the game more comparable to the game played by Sigel, Hall, Strickland and Archer in their primes.

Maybe they should just change the rack. Make a Magic Rack that spaces every ball 1/16" apart and then let's see how the players micro-manage that.

Roger

Paul Schofield said:

We can't undo what has been learned and done over the last 30 years. We can't go back. The break has a short reprieve until the players discover a new wired ball and the manipulating, arguing, and cheating rises again. There is a very simple solution. Get rid of the ball-on-the-break. All fixed.

Click to expand...

Why would you want to get rid of a ball on the break? Rotation pool is what it is, perhaps those that really don't like it should take up one pocket instead of constantly trying to change it into something it's not, just a thought.

Poolshootindon said:

Every game ever invented has an element of luck that can and will determine a winner. Hail mary pass in Football, 3/4 court shot at the buzzer to win a Basket Ball game, easy grounder hits the bag and caroms away the the infielder.

Luck has been around forever and will always be around. Just play the game and usually the better player will rise to the top.

Don

Click to expand...

Don,

I am curious as to your interpretation of luck as it applies to sports. If a hail mary is luck, and a 3/4 basketball court shot is luck, is it unlucky to if those throws are not successful? By the very fact that there are highly trained people that can accurately throw a football, there are very accurate receivers that coordinate with the quarterback, I'm not sure that a good completion is luck. How about a good two-rail kick in pool? If a newbie slops in a kick shot, it is certainly different than someone that practices kick shots, knows where to aim, and knows the English. Are you unlucky if you don't make it? I think the mind and the muscles (when trained, or practiced properly) take luck out of the equation on some of those types of situation.

If SVB and I both hit the same shot to get 3 rail shape on the next object ball, there is a certain aspect of luck involved if I get the shape, but not so for Shane.

Luck is certainly more involved in the break with all of the different ball reactions, but I view people that break successfully as more skilled in adapting to breaking conditions on the table than "lucky". I am not a very consistent breaker, but I view that as unsuccessful more than unlucky.

In his commentary during the Dechaine / Ouschan match, I think Mark Wilson proposed the perfect solution.

Neutral racker, one on the spot, with the breaker allowed to inspect the rack but not request a rerack.

BINGO!

PGA Bernhard Langer

Pebble beach final round, last hole for the win, Langer hit's the ball, goes out of bounds towards the ocean, ball hits a rock on the cliff, ball bounces back on too the fairway, ends up winning Pebble Beach.

So Paul, should Bernhard give his trophy back because he got lucky???

Island Drive said:

Pebble beach final round, last hole for the win, Langer hit's the ball, goes out of bounds towards the ocean, ball hits a rock on the cliff, ball bounces back on too the fairway, ends up winning Pebble Beach.

So Paul, should Bernhard give his trophy back because he got lucky???

Click to expand...

Thought that was Hale Irwin.

Pebble Beach/rocky shoreline cliffs

sjm said:

Thought that was Hale Irwin.

Click to expand...

Hale Irwin's Tee Shot Caroms Off the Rocks on 18 in 1984
It's better to be lucky than good, but it really helps if you're a bit of both. Trailing by one on Sunday, Irwin hooked his drive on 18 toward the ocean, but the ball hit a rock and bounced back in play, setting up a tying birdie, and two holes later, a sudden-death win over Jim Nelford

Thx for the correction,
I saw the ball go Below the fairway out of sight, only to return back on to the fairway. Luckier than shooting out of a tree and getting on to the green. And to be able to close it out and win after that was quite remarkable.

Island Drive said:

Pebble beach final round, last hole for the win, Langer hit's the ball, goes out of bounds towards the ocean, ball hits a rock on the cliff, ball bounces back on too the fairway, ends up winning Pebble Beach.

So Paul, should Bernhard give his trophy back because he got lucky???

Click to expand...

Luck is part of every sport, besides a few broken records, everyone knows this, LOL

sjm said:

In his commentary during the Dechaine / Ouschan match, I think Mark Wilson proposed the perfect solution.

Neutral racker, one on the spot, with the breaker allowed to inspect the rack but not request a rerack.

BINGO!

Click to expand...

Oh yeah I thought that was dead on too.

itsfroze said:

Luck is part of every sport, besides a few broken records, everyone knows this, LOL

Click to expand...

Paul S..................hates LUCK. My comment was directed at him because he wants to remove luck from the game, with a round object, that's not possible.:sorry:

sjm said:

In his commentary during the Dechaine / Ouschan match, I think Mark Wilson proposed the perfect solution.

Neutral racker, one on the spot, with the breaker allowed to inspect the rack but not request a rerack.

BINGO!

Click to expand...

I don't think this is going to work, imagine for eg being hill-hill and having to break a bad rack with no possibility to request a rerack.
A membrane is the perfect solution, rack for the opponent, no need for a neutral racker and you may rack the balls in any order you wish, that's the only defence you have against the opponent's break. He may break from the other side if he wants to overcome your racking pattern, and both players get fair chances without the parody of racking your own or having to break a bad rack.
Diamond company could think of releasing their own version of rack membranes, thus being able to apply their use at the US open.

Breaking Spot

Petros Andrikop said:

I don't think this is going to work, imagine for eg being hill-hill and having to break a bad rack with no possibility to request a rerack.
A membrane is the perfect solution, rack for the opponent, no need for a neutral racker and you may rack the balls in any order you wish, that's the only defence you have against the opponent's break. He may break from the other side if he wants to overcome your racking pattern, and both players get fair chances without the parody of racking your own or having to break a bad rack.
Diamond company could think of releasing their own version of rack membranes, thus being able to apply their use at the US open.

Click to expand...

I don't know exactly where they are breaking from at the US Open but I would think the box...how much latitude do they have within the break area?

It might not be a bad idea to specify a cue ball launch area and let the shooter choose how to hit the rack from it.

Petros Andrikop said:

I don't think this is going to work, imagine for eg being hill-hill and having to break a bad rack with no possibility to request a rerack.
A membrane is the perfect solution, rack for the opponent, no need for a neutral racker and you may rack the balls in any order you wish, that's the only defence you have against the opponent's break. He may break from the other side if he wants to overcome your racking pattern, and both players get fair chances without the parody of racking your own or having to break a bad rack.
Diamond company could think of releasing their own version of rack membranes, thus being able to apply their use at the US open.

Click to expand...

Neutral racker on all Hill Hill games works and is easily doable, put Jay to work. :wink: