Hello All,
After reading the post on the 3 foul rule, I began a comment and it turned into this...which has irritated me for near 30 years. I apologize for the length in advance but I couldn't seem to make it much shorter and I think it's an important question.
I think the real QUESTION #1 in everyone's mind is: “What game rules tend to highlight the best all-round play?”
and, in my mind, QUESITON #2 (or the next best question) is: “What game rules tend to make the game more exciting to watch?”
...because I am in favor of whatever accomplishes these two goals.
Now I'm an old guy and when I started playing...we played “Roll Out” (RO). Then at some point in the late 70's or early 80's someone decided the rules needed to change...and they somehow did...likely my perception of this is limited...and my take on how it happened doesn't matter.
I felt at the time moving to One Foul went too far. The real issue being the length of time required to play a hotly contested game. This could be effectively addressed with a shot clock similar in format to chess and implementation (or enforcement) of the three foul rule for Roll-Out. These changes would speed up the games yet retain the drama of excellent shot-making by rewarding a player who takes the calculated risk at the dare shot by allowing him to regain control from less than optimal position if he makes the ball.
I have listened to quite a few persuasive arguments for One Foul style but I have yet to hear anything that approaches conclusive. It seems to me One Foul de-emphasizes shot-making ability (if in doubt, play safe), reduces the element of implied risk (shooting by the percentages), and occasionally (sometimes more than occasionally) rewards a player that misses a ball and flukes safe (sometimes with a win).
SO THE QUESTION REMAINS: ”Does One Foul answer questions 1 & 2 ?” It has been 30 years since these changes were implemented to highlight the player's skills and make the game more interesting for the spectators. We still have not built a market share and this is still the most interesting game in the world...What gives? It is generally agreed that non-player spectators (that's the market share we need) are not interested in watching one-pocket but they LOVE artistic pool (what's with that name?). I believe it's because of the safe game...who wants to watch a “safe” game (it doesn't even sound fun)? I want to watch a risky game. I want to be impressed. Now everyone wants to watch those amazing shots get made because they are, in fact clearly outside nearly everyone's skill set. What would you rather watch...your favorite pro playing safe to win with ball in hand under complete control or him whipping in a backwards cut (you wouldn't even think about) and then banking out. I know the answer and so do you...I rest my case.
I expect to get flamed over this and that's OK...but if you are going to flame, take a little time to play a few sets of Roll-Out to get the feel for the game. It will be awkward at first because it requires a larger and different set of skills than most players born after 1975 have been taught to cultivate.
The rules are simple...
1.A scratch is played from behind the headstring...potential object balls behind the headstring are removed from play except for the ball before the money...which is spotted. I have seen it played where all balls are spotted...lowest numbers in front
2.If you get out of line after you pocket a ball or if you are hooked by your opponent...simply initiate a dare sequence...shoot the cueball to a place where you can make the ball and you figure your opponent can't. You can make balls...tie up balls...whatever you want (if you shoot in the game ball, it spots).
3.Now it's your opponent's option to:
a. take the shot
1) He can roll a different dare shot (its your option...start over at #3 but you both have one foul). If he hooks you/himself...simply let him shoot at it because if he doesn't make a good hit you get ball in hand.
2) Take a shot at the ball. If he takes the shot and makes it he keeps shooting...if he fouls...your shot from behind the headstring.
b. give the shot back to you....if you foul on this shot...he gets ball in hand.
4.The optional 3 foul rule would limit dare shot banter.
5.The optional shot clock would limit slow play.
6.Fouls out of series result in ball in hand behind the headstring.
There are probably some rules I left out so introduce yourself to the old guy in your favorite room if you need more info.
I'd be interested in differing opinions and arguments.
Just my opinion...you be the judge.
Hittman
Andy Bruce
After reading the post on the 3 foul rule, I began a comment and it turned into this...which has irritated me for near 30 years. I apologize for the length in advance but I couldn't seem to make it much shorter and I think it's an important question.
I think the real QUESTION #1 in everyone's mind is: “What game rules tend to highlight the best all-round play?”
and, in my mind, QUESITON #2 (or the next best question) is: “What game rules tend to make the game more exciting to watch?”
...because I am in favor of whatever accomplishes these two goals.
Now I'm an old guy and when I started playing...we played “Roll Out” (RO). Then at some point in the late 70's or early 80's someone decided the rules needed to change...and they somehow did...likely my perception of this is limited...and my take on how it happened doesn't matter.
I felt at the time moving to One Foul went too far. The real issue being the length of time required to play a hotly contested game. This could be effectively addressed with a shot clock similar in format to chess and implementation (or enforcement) of the three foul rule for Roll-Out. These changes would speed up the games yet retain the drama of excellent shot-making by rewarding a player who takes the calculated risk at the dare shot by allowing him to regain control from less than optimal position if he makes the ball.
I have listened to quite a few persuasive arguments for One Foul style but I have yet to hear anything that approaches conclusive. It seems to me One Foul de-emphasizes shot-making ability (if in doubt, play safe), reduces the element of implied risk (shooting by the percentages), and occasionally (sometimes more than occasionally) rewards a player that misses a ball and flukes safe (sometimes with a win).
SO THE QUESTION REMAINS: ”Does One Foul answer questions 1 & 2 ?” It has been 30 years since these changes were implemented to highlight the player's skills and make the game more interesting for the spectators. We still have not built a market share and this is still the most interesting game in the world...What gives? It is generally agreed that non-player spectators (that's the market share we need) are not interested in watching one-pocket but they LOVE artistic pool (what's with that name?). I believe it's because of the safe game...who wants to watch a “safe” game (it doesn't even sound fun)? I want to watch a risky game. I want to be impressed. Now everyone wants to watch those amazing shots get made because they are, in fact clearly outside nearly everyone's skill set. What would you rather watch...your favorite pro playing safe to win with ball in hand under complete control or him whipping in a backwards cut (you wouldn't even think about) and then banking out. I know the answer and so do you...I rest my case.
I expect to get flamed over this and that's OK...but if you are going to flame, take a little time to play a few sets of Roll-Out to get the feel for the game. It will be awkward at first because it requires a larger and different set of skills than most players born after 1975 have been taught to cultivate.
The rules are simple...
1.A scratch is played from behind the headstring...potential object balls behind the headstring are removed from play except for the ball before the money...which is spotted. I have seen it played where all balls are spotted...lowest numbers in front
2.If you get out of line after you pocket a ball or if you are hooked by your opponent...simply initiate a dare sequence...shoot the cueball to a place where you can make the ball and you figure your opponent can't. You can make balls...tie up balls...whatever you want (if you shoot in the game ball, it spots).
3.Now it's your opponent's option to:
a. take the shot
1) He can roll a different dare shot (its your option...start over at #3 but you both have one foul). If he hooks you/himself...simply let him shoot at it because if he doesn't make a good hit you get ball in hand.
2) Take a shot at the ball. If he takes the shot and makes it he keeps shooting...if he fouls...your shot from behind the headstring.
b. give the shot back to you....if you foul on this shot...he gets ball in hand.
4.The optional 3 foul rule would limit dare shot banter.
5.The optional shot clock would limit slow play.
6.Fouls out of series result in ball in hand behind the headstring.
There are probably some rules I left out so introduce yourself to the old guy in your favorite room if you need more info.
I'd be interested in differing opinions and arguments.
Just my opinion...you be the judge.
Hittman
Andy Bruce
... I'm thinking the change in rules would re-arrange the player standings fairly radically...many of the current safe-smiths would get a day job and new heroes would find their way to the money at the top. 